[{"id": 4, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 8%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 54%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 41%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 86%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 74%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 24%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would husband positively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 26%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 76%.\nWill alarm set by husband decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 77%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 26%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 76%.\nIs ringing alarm more likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 20%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 68%.\nWill alarm set by husband decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 11%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 60%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 46%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 92%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 61%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 1%.\nDoes husband positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 11%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 60%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 46%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 92%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 61%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 1%.\nDoes husband negatively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 3%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 50%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 45%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 94%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 49%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 53%.\nDoes husband positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 88%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 26%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 71%.\nIs ringing alarm less likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look at how husband correlates with alarm clock case by case according to wife. Method 2: We look directly at how husband correlates with alarm clock in general.\nTo understand how husband affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 32, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 51%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 49%.\nFor husbands that set the alarm, would it be more likely to see ringing alarm if the husband had not set the alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 43, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 42%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 66%.\nFor husbands that set the alarm, would it be more likely to see ringing alarm if the husband had not set the alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 45, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 11%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 63%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 49%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 99%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 59%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 35%.\nDoes husband positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 60, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 44%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 75%.\nWill alarm set by husband decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 62, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 8%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 51%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 49%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 92%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 85%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 60%.\nDoes husband negatively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 66, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how husband correlates with alarm clock in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wife.\nTo understand how husband affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 69, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 9%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 55%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 42%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 86%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 90%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 30%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would husband positively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 72, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look at how husband correlates with alarm clock case by case according to wife. Method 2: We look directly at how husband correlates with alarm clock in general.\nTo understand how husband affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 75, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 71%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 39%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 62%.\nIs ringing alarm more likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 77, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 78%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 56%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 66%.\nIs ringing alarm less likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 80, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 81%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 21%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 86%.\nIs ringing alarm more likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 88, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 6%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 49%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 54%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 99%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 94%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 50%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would husband positively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 91, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how husband correlates with alarm clock in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wife.\nTo understand how husband affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 92, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 39%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 59%.\nWill alarm set by husband increase the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 94, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look at how husband correlates with alarm clock case by case according to wife. Method 2: We look directly at how husband correlates with alarm clock in general.\nTo understand how husband affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 99, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 38%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 60%.\nWill alarm set by husband increase the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 0%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 48%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 36%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 80%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 79%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 54%.\nDoes husband negatively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 101, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 0%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 48%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 36%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 80%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 79%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 54%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would husband positively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 102, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 70%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 38%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 60%.\nIs ringing alarm less likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 8%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 50%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 39%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 86%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 85%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 29%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would husband negatively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 118, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 1%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 43%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 47%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 92%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 50%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 74%.\nDoes husband positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 119, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 1%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 43%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 47%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 92%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 50%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 74%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would husband negatively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 121, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 24%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 44%.\nWill alarm set by husband decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 128, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 53%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 82%.\nWill alarm set by husband decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 9%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 54%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 52%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 95%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 98%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 70%.\nDoes husband positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 133, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 36%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 55%.\nWill alarm set by husband decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 138, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look at how husband correlates with alarm clock case by case according to wife. Method 2: We look directly at how husband correlates with alarm clock in general.\nTo understand how husband affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 143, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 32%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 45%.\nWill alarm set by husband decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 153, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 3%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 50%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 50%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 97%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 63%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 84%.\nDoes husband negatively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 159, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 68%. The probability of not blowing out the candle and dark room is 12%. The probability of blowing out the candle and dark room is 51%.\nIs the chance of dark room smaller when observing blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 160, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 38%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 74%.\nWill blowing out the candle increase the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 38%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 74%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be more likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 44%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 75%.\nWill blowing out the candle decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 173, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 56%. For people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 55%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 89%.\nIs dark room less likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 175, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 39%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 72%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 176, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 43%. The probability of not blowing out the candle and dark room is 22%. The probability of blowing out the candle and dark room is 31%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 178, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look at how the man in the room correlates with room case by case according to the candle. Method 2: We look directly at how the man in the room correlates with room in general.\nTo understand how the man in the room affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 180, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 31%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 66%.\nWill blowing out the candle decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 184, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the man in the room correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how the man in the room affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 194, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 31%. The probability of not blowing out the candle and dark room is 21%. The probability of blowing out the candle and dark room is 19%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 197, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 38%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 72%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be more likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 199, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 29%. The probability of not blowing out the candle and dark room is 27%. The probability of blowing out the candle and dark room is 21%.\nIs the chance of dark room smaller when observing blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 201, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 48%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 79%.\nWill blowing out the candle decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 203, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 50%. The probability of not blowing out the candle and dark room is 24%. The probability of blowing out the candle and dark room is 40%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 204, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the man in the room correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how the man in the room affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 207, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 51%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 93%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 213, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 38%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 73%.\nWill blowing out the candle increase the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 216, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 30%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 63%.\nWill blowing out the candle decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 65%. The probability of not blowing out the candle and dark room is 10%. The probability of blowing out the candle and dark room is 41%.\nIs the chance of dark room smaller when observing blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 224, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 23%. For people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 23%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 58%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 229, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 43%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 74%.\nWill blowing out the candle decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 230, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 53%. For people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 43%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 74%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 232, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look at how the man in the room correlates with room case by case according to the candle. Method 2: We look directly at how the man in the room correlates with room in general.\nTo understand how the man in the room affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 41%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 74%.\nWill blowing out the candle increase the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 237, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 41%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 74%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 240, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 43%. For people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 48%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 80%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 41%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 74%.\nWill blowing out the candle increase the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 247, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look at how the man in the room correlates with room case by case according to the candle. Method 2: We look directly at how the man in the room correlates with room in general.\nTo understand how the man in the room affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 249, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 56%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 90%.\nWill blowing out the candle decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 254, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look at how the man in the room correlates with room case by case according to the candle. Method 2: We look directly at how the man in the room correlates with room in general.\nTo understand how the man in the room affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 255, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the man in the room correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how the man in the room affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 265, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 26%. The probability of not blowing out the candle and dark room is 41%. The probability of blowing out the candle and dark room is 22%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 269, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 33%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 68%.\nWill blowing out the candle decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 273, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the man in the room correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how the man in the room affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 86%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 31%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 70%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 276, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 86%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 4%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 60%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 278, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 9%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 54%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 46%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 90%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 17%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 27%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 279, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 40%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 16%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 58%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 281, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 40%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 10%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 23%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 282, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 13%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 51%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 46%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 83%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 53%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 60%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 286, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 23%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 57%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 43%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 79%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 17%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 287, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 23%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 57%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 43%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 79%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 17%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 289, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 32%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 16%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 21%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 290, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 49%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 14%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 37%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 291, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 16%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 37%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 71%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 13%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 292, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 10%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 84%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 19%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 26%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 293, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 30%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 18%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 57%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 294, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 30%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 18%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 57%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 295, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 30%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 13%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 17%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 297, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 6%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 48%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 89%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 33%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 44%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 300, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 12%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 45%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 88%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 30%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 302, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 304, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 31%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 21%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 24%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 307, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 22%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 61%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 82%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 22%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 308, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 17%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 56%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 90%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 23%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 38%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 309, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 40%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 25%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 69%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 312, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 43%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 81%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 63%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 98%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 26%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 313, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 21%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 64%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 63%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 99%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 60%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 64%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 61%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 31%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 67%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 321, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 22%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 59%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 49%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 84%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 13%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 322, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 37%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 23%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 66%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 323, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 37%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 23%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 66%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 324, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 325, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 327, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 11%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 51%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 45%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 88%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 35%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 48%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 55%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 18%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 61%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 333, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 55%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 8%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 34%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 334, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 24%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 60%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 39%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 74%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 18%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 335, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 9%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 54%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 46%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 87%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 38%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 50%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 336, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 19%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 21%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 12%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 337, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 19%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 21%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 12%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 338, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 340, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 27%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 59%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 42%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 74%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 12%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 341, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 17%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 51%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 49%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 84%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 30%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 38%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 342, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 45%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 27%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 62%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 344, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 346, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 13%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 49%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 88%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 50%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 56%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 347, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 56%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 14%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 40%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 56%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 14%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 40%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 34%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 73%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 83%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 11%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 350, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 9%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 50%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 85%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 66%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 73%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 351, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 9%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 50%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 85%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 66%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 73%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 352, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 24%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 26%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 18%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 355, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 17%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 48%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 80%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 15%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 39%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 356, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 39%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 22%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 60%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 357, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 39%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 22%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 60%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 17%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 56%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 37%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 76%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 22%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 364, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 10%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 49%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 82%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 27%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 36%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 365, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 66%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 19%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 61%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 366, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 66%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 7%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 40%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 368, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 34%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 28%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 64%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 19%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 59%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 60%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 99%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 26%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 37%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 371, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 15%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 25%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 11%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 372, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 17%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 56%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 88%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 31%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 36%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 374, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 43%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 16%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 28%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 378, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 22%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 60%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 39%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 76%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 23%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 380, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 7%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 57%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 45%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 93%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 37%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 48%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 5%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 39%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 40%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 79%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 42%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 63%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 382, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 5%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 39%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 40%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 79%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 42%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 63%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 383, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 14%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 19%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 64%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 42%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 25%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 63%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 389, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 394, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 55%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 9%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 29%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 395, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 55%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 9%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 29%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 396, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 399, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 50%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 69%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 406, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 40%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 83%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 40%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 83%.\nDoes the captain negatively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 408, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 68%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 13%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 56%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 409, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 415, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 34%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 80%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 416, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 34%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 80%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 418, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 34%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 80%.\nDoes the captain negatively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 421, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 16%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 37%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 52%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 8%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 19%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 425, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 21%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 65%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 427, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 68%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 21%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 65%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 430, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how the captain correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 433, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 35%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 57%.\nDoes the captain negatively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 438, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 55%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 16%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 39%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 40%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 74%.\nDoes the captain positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 442, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 66%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 14%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 48%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 445, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 447, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 33%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 56%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 59%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 33%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 56%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 20%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 69%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 454, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 20%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 69%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 455, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 20%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 69%.\nDoes the captain positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 458, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 52%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 10%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 36%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 460, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 29%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 50%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 465, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 41%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 17%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 20%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 468, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 76%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 31%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 75%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 485, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 59%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 15%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 31%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 486, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 59%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 15%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 31%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 490, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 29%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 72%.\nDoes the captain positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 492, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 39%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 47%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 495, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 52%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 39%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 47%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 498, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 24%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 71%.\nDoes the captain positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 499, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 73%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 24%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 71%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 502, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 73%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 7%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 52%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 503, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 83%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 93%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 36%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 72%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 514, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how the captain correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 517, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 26%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 68%.\nDoes the captain positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 518, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 26%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 68%.\nDoes the captain negatively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 519, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 520, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 34%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 57%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 522, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 71%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 7%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 48%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 526, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 44%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 53%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 66%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 527, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 44%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 30%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 29%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 528, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 44%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 30%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 29%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 45%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 74%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 532, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 26%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 56%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 533, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 26%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 56%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 534, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 26%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 56%.\nDoes the captain positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 535, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 72%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 26%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 56%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 16%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 56%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 54%.\nIs wet ground more likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 548, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 48%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 26%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 23%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 550, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 39%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 49%.\nWill rainy season increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 552, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 39%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 49%.\nDoes season negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 556, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 52%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 57%.\nWill rainy season increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 558, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 52%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 57%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be less likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 20%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 43%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 54%.\nIs wet ground less likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 567, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 42%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 47%.\nDoes season positively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 568, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 42%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 47%.\nDoes season negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 570, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 47%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 61%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be more likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 571, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 35%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 47%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 61%.\nIs wet ground less likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 572, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 35%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 31%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 21%.\nIs the chance of wet ground larger when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 574, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 577, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 19%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 35%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 10%.\nIs the chance of wet ground larger when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 83%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 79%.\nDoes season negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 586, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 55%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 62%.\nWill rainy season increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 590, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how season correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 591, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 53%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 63%.\nDoes season positively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 595, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 44%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 53%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 63%.\nIs wet ground less likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 599, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 37%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 42%.\nWill rainy season decrease the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 601, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 37%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 42%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be less likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 19%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 32%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 8%.\nIs the chance of wet ground larger when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 61%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 70%.\nDoes season positively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 612, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 48%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 62%.\nWill rainy season increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 19%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 48%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 62%.\nIs wet ground more likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 618, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how season correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 620, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 31%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 48%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 61%.\nIs wet ground more likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 622, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 38%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 43%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be less likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 28%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 39%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 46%.\nIs wet ground less likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 629, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 28%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 28%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 13%.\nIs the chance of wet ground larger when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 630, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 33%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 48%.\nDoes season negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 635, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 35%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 49%.\nWill rainy season increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 637, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 35%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 49%.\nDoes season negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 638, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 34%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 23%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 17%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 30%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 40%.\nDoes season negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 643, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 13%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 30%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 40%.\nIs wet ground less likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 646, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how season correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 647, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 47%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 53%.\nDoes season positively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 650, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 16%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 39%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 9%.\nIs the chance of wet ground larger when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 655, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 21%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 19%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 8%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 660, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 43%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 18%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 16%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 662, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 55%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 60%.\nDoes season positively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 666, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how season correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 668, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 31%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 46%.\nWill rainy season decrease the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 679, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 38%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 78%.\nWill the camper lighting a match increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 5%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 18%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 57%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 14%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 30%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 9%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 689, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 19%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 60%.\nWill the camper lighting a match increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 694, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 38%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 80%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be less likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 701, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 29%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 15%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 50%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 708, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 13%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 43%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 13%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 715, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 28%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 74%.\nWill the camper lighting a match decrease the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 716, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 28%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 74%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 28%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 28%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 74%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 723, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 34%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 67%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 724, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 726, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 28%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 31%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 21%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 732, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look at how the camper correlates with the forest case by case according to the smoker. Method 2: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 734, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 52%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 88%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 735, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 30%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 37%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 26%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 736, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 24%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 34%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 60%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 24%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 34%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 60%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 740, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look at how the camper correlates with the forest case by case according to the smoker. Method 2: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 743, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 30%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 33%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 22%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 745, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 747, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 28%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 86%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 748, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 14%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 28%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 86%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 753, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 22%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 27%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 60%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 754, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look at how the camper correlates with the forest case by case according to the smoker. Method 2: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 760, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 7%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 38%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 6%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 763, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 43%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 72%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 765, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 10%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 39%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 7%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 769, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look at how the camper correlates with the forest case by case according to the smoker. Method 2: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 783, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 17%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 39%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 68%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 785, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 17%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 66%.\nWill the camper lighting a match increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 787, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 27%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 13%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 18%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 791, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 89%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 8%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 37%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 792, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 88%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 35%.\nWill waking up late increase the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 793, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 88%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 35%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be less likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 795, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 40%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 53%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 14%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 796, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 74%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 38%.\nWill waking up late increase the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 799, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 53%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 35%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 20%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time smaller when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 800, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 803, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 33%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 46%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 12%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 808, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 71%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 66%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 26%.\nIs arriving to school on time less likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 813, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 42%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 62%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 31%.\nIs arriving to school on time more likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 821, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 38%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 81%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 48%.\nIs arriving to school on time more likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 822, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 38%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 50%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 19%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 824, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to traffic.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 825, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 64%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 33%.\nWill waking up late decrease the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 829, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 56%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 24%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be less likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 839, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 64%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 25%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 842, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 847, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to traffic.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 848, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 60%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 33%.\nWill waking up late decrease the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 851, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 64%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 22%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 21%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time smaller when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 852, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 71%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 24%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be less likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 853, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 56%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 24%.\nWill waking up late decrease the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 857, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 74%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 30%.\nWill waking up late increase the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 862, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to traffic.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 63%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 32%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 31%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 869, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 49%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 39%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 4%.\nIs arriving to school on time more likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 870, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 49%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 39%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 4%.\nIs arriving to school on time less likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 874, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 56%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 18%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 88%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 45%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 882, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 42%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 88%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 45%.\nIs arriving to school on time less likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 883, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 79%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 81%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 41%.\nIs arriving to school on time less likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 50%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 5%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 891, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 86%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 47%.\nWill waking up late increase the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 892, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 86%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 47%.\nWill waking up late decrease the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 896, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 898, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 60%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 26%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 911, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 31%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 95%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 918, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 17%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 67%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 923, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 24%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 68%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 924, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 24%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 68%.\nWill tanning salon treatment decrease the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 929, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 932, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 15%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 70%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be less likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 4%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 15%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 3%.\nIs the chance of tanned skin larger when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 936, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 6%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 31%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 85%.\nIs tanned skin less likely than pale skin overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 938, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 5%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 16%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 66%.\nIs tanned skin less likely than pale skin overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 939, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 25%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 77%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 940, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 25%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 77%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 949, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 23%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 76%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 954, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 1%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 22%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 78%.\nIs tanned skin less likely than pale skin overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 957, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 21%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 72%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be less likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 1%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 21%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 72%.\nIs tanned skin less likely than pale skin overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 3%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 27%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 81%.\nIs tanned skin more likely than pale skin overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 962, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 23%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 82%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 963, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 967, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 13%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 70%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 5%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 6%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 3%.\nIs the chance of tanned skin smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 976, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 7%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 59%.\nWill tanning salon treatment decrease the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 2%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 14%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 1%.\nIs the chance of tanned skin smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 983, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 30%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 84%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 984, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 8%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 30%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 84%.\nIs tanned skin more likely than pale skin overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 986, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 988, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 42%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 90%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be less likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 990, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 5%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 40%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 4%.\nIs the chance of tanned skin smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 992, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 7%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 60%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be less likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 4%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 7%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 3%.\nIs the chance of tanned skin larger when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 997, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 0%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 28%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 0%.\nIs the chance of tanned skin larger when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 36%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 88%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1005, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 9%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 36%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 88%.\nIs tanned skin less likely than pale skin overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1006, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 9%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 33%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 8%.\nIs the chance of tanned skin smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1011, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 53%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 45%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be less likely to see penguin death if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1013, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 64%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 53%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 45%.\nIs penguin death less likely than penguin lives overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1017, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 54%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 49%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be less likely to see penguin death if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1026, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 79%. The probability of taking the stairs and penguin death is 11%. The probability of taking the elevator and penguin death is 42%.\nIs the chance of penguin death larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1027, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with penguin survival case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with penguin survival in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects penguin survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1029, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 42%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 49%.\nWill taking the elevator decrease the chance of penguin death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1035, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 65%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 55%.\nWill taking the elevator decrease the chance of penguin death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1036, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 65%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 55%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be more likely to see penguin death if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1037, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 65%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 55%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be less likely to see penguin death if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1040, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 38%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 85%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 53%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 93%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 61%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 42%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1041, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 66%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 66%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 70%.\nIs penguin death more likely than penguin lives overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1042, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 66%. The probability of taking the stairs and penguin death is 22%. The probability of taking the elevator and penguin death is 46%.\nIs the chance of penguin death larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1047, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 11%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 61%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 22%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 73%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 37%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 10%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision negatively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1048, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 65%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 29%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 27%.\nIs penguin death less likely than penguin lives overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1051, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how my decision correlates with penguin survival in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to penguin mood.\nTo understand how my decision affects penguin survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1052, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 43%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 50%.\nWill taking the elevator decrease the chance of penguin death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1055, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 6%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 60%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 23%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 77%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 68%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 50%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect penguin survival through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1057, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 77%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 43%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 50%.\nIs penguin death less likely than penguin lives overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1069, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with penguin survival case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with penguin survival in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects penguin survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1071, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 34%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be more likely to see penguin death if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 14%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 57%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 21%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 65%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 70%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 30%.\nDoes my decision positively affect penguin survival through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1075, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with penguin survival case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with penguin survival in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects penguin survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1081, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 20%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 61%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 27%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 68%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 70%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 33%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1083, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 76%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 49%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 41%.\nIs penguin death less likely than penguin lives overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1085, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 76%. The probability of taking the stairs and penguin death is 12%. The probability of taking the elevator and penguin death is 31%.\nIs the chance of penguin death smaller when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1087, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 22%.\nWill taking the elevator increase the chance of penguin death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1090, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 22%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be less likely to see penguin death if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 5%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 67%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 17%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 77%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 63%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 38%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision negatively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with penguin survival case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with penguin survival in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects penguin survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1104, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how my decision correlates with penguin survival in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to penguin mood.\nTo understand how my decision affects penguin survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1105, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 9%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 18%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 56%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 54%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 9%.\nDoes my decision positively affect penguin survival through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1108, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 47%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be less likely to see penguin death if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1110, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 26%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 67%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 35%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 79%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 46%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 28%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1112, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 36%. The probability of taking the stairs and penguin death is 29%. The probability of taking the elevator and penguin death is 17%.\nIs the chance of penguin death larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 28%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 60%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 35%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 74%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 57%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 22%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect penguin survival through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1121, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 67%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 67%.\nWill taking the elevator increase the chance of penguin death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1125, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 30%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 82%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 46%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 95%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 71%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 43%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1128, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 27%.\nWill taking the elevator increase the chance of penguin death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 27%.\nWill taking the elevator decrease the chance of penguin death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1137, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 61%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 63%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be less likely to see penguin death if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1142, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 20%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 62%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 35%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 78%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 82%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 45%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision negatively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1147, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 11%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 57%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 25%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 66%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 86%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 39%.\nDoes my decision positively affect penguin survival through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 67%. The probability of taking the stairs and penguin death is 15%. The probability of taking the elevator and penguin death is 27%.\nIs the chance of penguin death larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1170, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 2%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 54%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 20%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 65%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 65%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 46%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision negatively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1171, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 33%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 36%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 41%.\nIs penguin death more likely than penguin lives overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1173, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 66%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 59%.\nWill taking the elevator increase the chance of penguin death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1177, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 66%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 66%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 59%.\nIs penguin death less likely than penguin lives overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1179, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 42%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 54%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1181, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 42%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 54%.\nDoes vaccination status negatively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1183, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 97%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 1%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 52%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival smaller when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1184, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival in general.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1185, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 39%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 46%.\nWill vaccination increase the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1186, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 39%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 46%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1187, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 39%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 46%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be less likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1189, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 78%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 39%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 46%.\nIs smallpox survival more likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1191, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival in general.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1194, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 58%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 48%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be less likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1196, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 100%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 58%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 48%.\nIs smallpox survival less likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1199, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 71%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 65%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be less likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1201, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 71%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 65%.\nDoes vaccination status negatively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1203, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 55%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 68%.\nWill vaccination increase the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1205, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 55%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 68%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be less likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1210, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival in general.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1215, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 57%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 52%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1216, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 57%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 52%.\nDoes vaccination status positively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 78%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 13%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 40%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival smaller when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1221, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 31%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 41%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be less likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1224, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vaccination reaction.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1237, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 87%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 49%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 50%.\nIs smallpox survival less likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1239, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vaccination reaction.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1240, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 33%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 34%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1242, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 76%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 33%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 34%.\nIs smallpox survival more likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1244, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 50%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 59%.\nWill vaccination increase the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1245, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 50%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 59%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1246, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 50%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 59%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be less likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1247, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 77%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 50%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 59%.\nIs smallpox survival less likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1248, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 77%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 11%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 46%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1253, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 43%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 51%.\nDoes vaccination status positively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1260, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 45%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 58%.\nDoes vaccination status negatively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1266, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 91%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 4%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 36%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1268, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 56%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 49%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1274, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 33%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 34%.\nWill vaccination increase the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1278, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 39%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 36%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1283, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 65%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 73%.\nDoes vaccination status negatively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 73%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 18%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 53%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival smaller when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1285, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 36%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 56%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1289, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 55%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 62%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be less likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1291, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 93%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 4%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 58%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival smaller when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1299, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 70%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 9%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 35%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1305, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 58%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 69%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1307, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 86%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 58%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 69%.\nIs smallpox survival more likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1311, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 44%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 43%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 88%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 44%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 43%.\nIs smallpox survival more likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1319, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 42%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 41%.\nDoes vaccination status negatively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1326, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how medication correlates with heart condition in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to blood pressure.\nTo understand how medication affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1330, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 77%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 36%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 90%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 44%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 75%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 3%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication negatively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1331, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 57%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 46%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 88%.\nIs healthy heart less likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1333, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 38%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 61%.\nFor people taking medication, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person had taken no medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1334, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 51%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 23%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 81%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 47%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 46%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 59%.\nDoes medication positively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1338, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 26%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 49%.\nWill taking medication increase the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1340, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 96%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 26%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 49%.\nIs healthy heart more likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1342, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 96%. The probability of not taking medication and healthy heart is 1%. The probability of taking medication and healthy heart is 47%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart larger when observing taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1345, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 66%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 36%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 92%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 70%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 63%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 22%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication negatively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look at how medication correlates with heart condition case by case according to blood pressure. Method 2: We look directly at how medication correlates with heart condition in general.\nTo understand how medication affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 71%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 46%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 81%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 33%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 75%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 31%.\nDoes medication negatively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1361, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 88%. The probability of not taking medication and healthy heart is 4%. The probability of taking medication and healthy heart is 68%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart larger when observing taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1364, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how medication correlates with heart condition in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to blood pressure.\nTo understand how medication affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1366, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 60%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 8%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 48%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 20%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 94%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 28%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1371, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 62%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 37%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 92%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 66%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 48%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 55%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1375, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 59%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 49%.\nFor people taking medication, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person had taken no medication?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1377, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 88%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 59%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 49%.\nIs healthy heart more likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 24%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 69%.\nWill taking medication decrease the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1385, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 59%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 19%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 94%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 45%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 89%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 51%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 59%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 19%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 94%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 45%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 89%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 51%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication negatively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1390, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 42%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 60%.\nFor people taking medication, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person had taken no medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1391, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 63%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 31%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 72%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 41%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 66%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 38%.\nDoes medication positively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1401, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 41%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 18%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 73%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 44%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 50%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 26%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication negatively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1404, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 47%. The probability of not taking medication and healthy heart is 16%. The probability of taking medication and healthy heart is 30%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart larger when observing taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1405, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 38%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 25%.\nFor people taking medication, would it be more likely to see healthy heart if the person had taken no medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1413, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 44%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 11%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 68%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 38%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 73%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 52%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1416, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look at how medication correlates with heart condition case by case according to blood pressure. Method 2: We look directly at how medication correlates with heart condition in general.\nTo understand how medication affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1420, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 59%. The probability of not taking medication and healthy heart is 10%. The probability of taking medication and healthy heart is 22%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart larger when observing taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1421, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 59%. The probability of not taking medication and healthy heart is 10%. The probability of taking medication and healthy heart is 22%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart smaller when observing taking medication?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1427, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 50%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 73%.\nFor people taking medication, would it be more likely to see healthy heart if the person had taken no medication?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1428, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 83%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 43%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 73%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 50%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 82%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 1%.\nDoes medication positively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1430, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 92%. The probability of not taking medication and healthy heart is 4%. The probability of taking medication and healthy heart is 67%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart smaller when observing taking medication?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1433, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 38%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 7%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 81%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 50%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 70%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 23%.\nDoes medication negatively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1435, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look at how medication correlates with heart condition case by case according to blood pressure. Method 2: We look directly at how medication correlates with heart condition in general.\nTo understand how medication affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1437, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 47%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 64%.\nFor people taking medication, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person had taken no medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1439, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 78%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 30%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 73%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 41%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 65%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 29%.\nDoes medication negatively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1448, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 21%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 55%.\nFor people taking medication, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person had taken no medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1452, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how medication correlates with heart condition in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to blood pressure.\nTo understand how medication affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1455, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 61%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 41%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 84%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 24%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 58%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 26%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication negatively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1460, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 87%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 64%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 89%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 40%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 75%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 29%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1465, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 38%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 80%.\nFor people taking medication, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person had taken no medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1470, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 50%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 56%.\nFor people taking medication, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person had taken no medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1471, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 79%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 15%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 62%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 10%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 46%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 11%.\nDoes medication negatively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1473, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 99%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 50%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 56%.\nIs healthy heart less likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1475, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 99%. The probability of not taking medication and healthy heart is 1%. The probability of taking medication and healthy heart is 55%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart smaller when observing taking medication?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1491, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 58%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 6%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 25%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 3%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 16%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent decrease when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1494, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 43%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 11%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 11%.\nIs talent more likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1495, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 43%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 11%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 11%.\nIs talent less likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1498, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1500, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1504, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 43%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 4%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 27%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 4%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 11%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent decrease when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1505, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 55%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 17%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 17%.\nIs talent more likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1507, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.27.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance does not affect talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 52%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 16%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 16%.\nIs talent less likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1515, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 45%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 4%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 4%.\nIs talent more likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1520, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 49%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 12%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 12%.\nIs talent less likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1522, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.09.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance does not affect talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1525, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1526, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1540, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1543, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 54%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 11%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 11%.\nIs talent less likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1544, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.08.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance affects talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1545, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.08.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance does not affect talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1547, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 43%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 10%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 10%.\nIs talent more likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1548, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 43%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 10%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 10%.\nIs talent less likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1553, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 41%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 2%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 2%.\nIs talent more likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1554, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 41%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 2%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 2%.\nIs talent less likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1555, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1559, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 58%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 13%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 13%.\nIs talent more likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1562, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 56%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 9%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 9%.\nIs talent more likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.05.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance affects talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1564, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1567, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 48%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 1%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 3%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 0%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 2%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent decrease when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1569, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1571, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.05.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance affects talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1576, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 48%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 54%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 77%.\nIs low cholesterol more likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1586, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drug taken affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1587, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 59%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 67%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 26%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 69%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs increase the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1588, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 59%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 67%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 26%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 69%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs decrease the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1591, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 63%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 52%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 37%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 74%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs increase the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 34%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 40%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 66%.\nIs low cholesterol less likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 62%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 38%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 51%.\nIs low cholesterol more likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1608, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 62%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 15%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 32%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol smaller when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 55%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 45%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 54%.\nIs low cholesterol less likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1612, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level in general.\nTo understand how drug taken affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1613, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 52%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 50%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 22%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 49%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs increase the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1618, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 57%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 54%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 49%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 80%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs decrease the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1620, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 55%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 62%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 51%.\nIs low cholesterol less likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1621, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 55%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 28%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 28%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol smaller when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1623, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level in general.\nTo understand how drug taken affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drug taken affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1633, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level in general.\nTo understand how drug taken affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1635, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 18%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 10%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 9%.\nIs low cholesterol more likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 61%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 63%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 39%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 63%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs decrease the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1638, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 52%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 57%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 67%.\nIs low cholesterol less likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1639, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 52%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 28%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 34%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol smaller when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drug taken affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1641, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 19%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 14%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 36%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 83%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs decrease the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1651, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 48%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 89%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 64%.\nIs low cholesterol less likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1652, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drug taken affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1653, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level in general.\nTo understand how drug taken affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1665, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 27%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 14%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 34%.\nIs low cholesterol more likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1668, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 63%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 79%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 25%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 66%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs decrease the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1673, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 22%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 24%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 6%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol larger when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1676, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 13%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 58%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1677, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 13%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 58%.\nDoes education level positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 2%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 13%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 58%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1679, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 2%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 13%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 1%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1680, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1681, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 43%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 81%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1682, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 43%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 81%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 43%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 81%.\nDoes education level negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1685, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 45%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 43%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 81%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 61%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 80%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1691, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1692, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 21%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 38%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1698, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 60%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 26%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 40%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1701, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1702, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 11%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 53%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1703, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 11%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 53%.\nDoes education level positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1706, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 3%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 11%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 2%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1711, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 37%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 45%.\nDoes education level positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1714, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 40%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 69%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1716, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 40%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 69%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 44%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 40%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 69%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1718, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1722, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 79%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 89%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1726, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1731, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 20%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 35%.\nDoes education level positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1738, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 52%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 67%.\nDoes education level negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1740, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 24%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 67%.\nDoes education level negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1742, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 51%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 12%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 34%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1747, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 26%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 58%.\nDoes education level positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1748, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 6%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 25%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 3%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1750, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 42%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 69%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1752, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 43%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 42%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 69%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1754, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 65%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 84%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1756, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 2%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 65%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 84%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1760, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 47%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 66%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1762, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 17%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 47%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 66%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1767, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 42%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 63%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1772, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 19%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 42%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 63%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 19%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 42%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 63%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1775, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 54%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 83%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1782, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 55%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 87%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 55%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 87%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1785, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 55%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 87%.\nDoes education level negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1788, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1789, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 54%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 69%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1791, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 39%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 66%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1792, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 39%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 66%.\nDoes education level positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1795, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 47%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 61%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1796, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 47%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 61%.\nDoes education level positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1802, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1814, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 55%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 17%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 36%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1816, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1835, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 22%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 42%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 39%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 78%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1837, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 61%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 1%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 32%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1846, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1849, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 59%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 75%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 99%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1852, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1855, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1856, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 51%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 73%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 53%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 88%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1857, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 74%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 19%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 81%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1859, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 41%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 49%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 46%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 71%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1863, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 47%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 18%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 41%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1866, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 36%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 12%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 23%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1868, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1873, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1876, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 59%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 25%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 59%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1879, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 59%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 16%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 42%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 46%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 38%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 88%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1881, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 46%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 38%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 88%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1884, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 61%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 73%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 33%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 61%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1888, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 58%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 30%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 64%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1891, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 30%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 34%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 64%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1895, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1896, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 45%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 27%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 42%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1897, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and being hard-working is -0.05.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1911, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 55%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 45%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 45%.\nIs being hard-working more likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1916, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how talent correlates with effort case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1924, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and being hard-working is -0.04.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent does not affect being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1926, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 12%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 8%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 18%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 5%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 14%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1935, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 53%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 30%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 78%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 15%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 55%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1939, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 11%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 4%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 12%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 2%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 10%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1941, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 42%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 51%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 51%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1942, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how talent correlates with effort case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1943, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1945, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 42%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 43%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 65%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 31%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 62%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1947, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 10%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 8%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 23%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 6%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 17%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working decrease when talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1949, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1950, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how talent correlates with effort case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1951, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and being hard-working is -0.07.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and being hard-working is -0.07.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent does not affect being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1953, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 47%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 50%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 50%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1957, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 47%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 41%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 76%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 34%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 61%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working decrease when talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1960, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and being hard-working is -0.08.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent does not affect being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 12%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 6%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 19%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 4%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 13%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working decrease when talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1965, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how talent correlates with effort case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 47%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 49%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 49%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1968, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and being hard-working is -0.01.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent does not affect being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1970, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 13%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 4%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 4%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 47%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 57%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 57%.\nIs being hard-working more likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how talent correlates with effort case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1976, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and being hard-working is -0.66.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent does not affect being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 2%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 5%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 20%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 4%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 11%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 2%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 5%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 20%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 4%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 11%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working decrease when talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1982, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 44%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 54%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 54%.\nIs being hard-working more likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 1989, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 27%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 52%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 47%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 82%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 31%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 57%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through studying habit, would encouragement level negatively affect exam score?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 1994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 26%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 65%.\nWill encouragement increase the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2000, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 44%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 86%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be less likely to see high exam score if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2013, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 32%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 56%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 53%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 86%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 10%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 85%.\nDoes encouragement level positively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2014, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 32%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 56%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 53%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 86%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 10%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 85%.\nDoes encouragement level negatively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2023, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 26%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 72%.\nWill encouragement decrease the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2030, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 28%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 66%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be less likely to see high exam score if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2041, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 30%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 64%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be more likely to see high exam score if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2049, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 32%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 92%.\nWill encouragement decrease the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2050, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 32%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 92%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be less likely to see high exam score if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2055, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 47%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 25%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 75%.\nIs high exam score less likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2059, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 31%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 69%.\nWill encouragement decrease the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2067, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 54%. The probability of discouragement and high exam score is 21%. The probability of encouragement and high exam score is 48%.\nIs the chance of high exam score larger when observing encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2068, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 54%. The probability of discouragement and high exam score is 21%. The probability of encouragement and high exam score is 48%.\nIs the chance of high exam score smaller when observing encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 13%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 73%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be less likely to see high exam score if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2077, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 26%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 55%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 71%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 95%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 20%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 72%.\nDoes encouragement level positively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2079, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 26%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 55%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 71%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 95%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 20%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 72%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through studying habit, would encouragement level positively affect exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2082, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how encouragement level correlates with exam score in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to studying habit.\nTo understand how encouragement level affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 18%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 42%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 44%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 70%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 29%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 90%.\nDoes encouragement level negatively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2086, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 38%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 80%.\nWill encouragement decrease the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2098, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 32%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 76%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be more likely to see high exam score if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2101, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 42%. The probability of discouragement and high exam score is 19%. The probability of encouragement and high exam score is 32%.\nIs the chance of high exam score larger when observing encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2106, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 7%. The probability of discouragement and high exam score is 31%. The probability of encouragement and high exam score is 5%.\nIs the chance of high exam score larger when observing encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2127, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 6%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 49%.\nWill encouragement increase the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2140, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 20%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 48%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 56%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 88%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 4%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 96%.\nDoes encouragement level negatively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2142, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 45%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 21%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 87%.\nIs high exam score more likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2143, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 45%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 21%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 87%.\nIs high exam score less likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2148, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 48%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 36%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 48%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 36%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2150, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 58%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 25%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 59%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 28%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 29%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 77%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2154, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 82%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 45%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 95%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 57%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 5%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 62%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2159, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2163, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2164, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 43%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 55%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2165, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 43%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 55%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 42%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 52%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 40%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 59%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 17%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 79%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2167, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 53%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 43%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 55%.\nIs admission acceptance less likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2176, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 54%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 59%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2186, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 56%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 49%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2188, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 76%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 28%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 93%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 47%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 41%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 97%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2205, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 49%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 22%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 26%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2206, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 49%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 22%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 26%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2216, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 44%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 15%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 53%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 5%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 34%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 56%.\nDoes gender negatively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2222, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 41%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 28%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 48%.\nIs admission acceptance more likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2227, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2229, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 63%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 21%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 50%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 90%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 37%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 32%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2231, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 51%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 47%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 63%.\nIs admission acceptance more likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2234, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 51%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 23%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 32%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2235, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2237, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 63%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 9%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 43%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 21%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 26%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 86%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2238, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 54%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 49%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 24%.\nIs admission acceptance less likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2245, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 60%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 20%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 75%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 97%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 40%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 61%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2246, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 60%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 20%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 75%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 97%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 40%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 61%.\nDoes gender negatively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2248, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 40%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 66%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2255, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 70%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 67%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2270, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 60%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 57%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 68%.\nIs admission acceptance more likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2272, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 53%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 35%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 51%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 21%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 56%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 10%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 48%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 67%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2278, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 51%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 21%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 56%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 10%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 48%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 67%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 72%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 84%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2285, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 75%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 60%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 64%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 93%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 23%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 71%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2301, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 76%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 68%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2310, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 45%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 45%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 34%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2316, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 76%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 35%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 76%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 45%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 42%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 4%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 71%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 32%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 82%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2320, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 43%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 71%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 64%.\nIs admission acceptance less likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2321, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 43%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 41%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 28%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2323, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 84%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 87%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2328, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 75%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 82%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2334, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 57%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 20%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 64%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 25%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 38%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 18%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 78%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 54%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 90%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2338, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2344, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 75%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 39%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 67%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 34%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 42%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 1%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 48%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 5%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 97%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2356, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 67%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 61%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2357, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 67%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 61%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 73%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 42%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 72%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 47%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 41%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 17%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 68%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 41%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 87%.\nDoes gender negatively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2359, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 44%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 38%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 27%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2368, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 50%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 42%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 49%.\nIs admission acceptance less likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2372, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 50%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 35%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2375, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with admission status case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2379, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 83%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 33%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 84%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 41%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 63%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 6%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 93%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 42%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 81%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2380, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 71%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 68%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 71%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 68%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2382, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 71%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 68%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2387, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 89%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 8%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 61%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2388, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with admission status case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2390, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 58%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 57%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2398, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with admission status case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2402, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 53%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 30%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 29%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2409, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 54%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 60%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2414, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 65%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 28%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 69%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 22%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 53%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 26%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 81%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 9%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 81%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2422, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 89%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 6%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 42%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2434, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 83%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 9%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 49%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2435, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 74%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 72%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2436, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 85%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 62%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 87%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 56%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 86%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 45%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 85%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 46%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 95%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2437, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 85%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 62%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 87%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 56%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 86%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 45%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 85%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 46%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 95%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2438, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 55%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 74%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 72%.\nIs admission acceptance more likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2439, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 55%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 33%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 40%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2440, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with admission status case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2445, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 54%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 14%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 42%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 9%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 34%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 6%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 66%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 30%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 88%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2455, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 82%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 48%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 41%.\nIs admission acceptance more likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2458, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 76%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 47%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 76%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 45%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 76%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 27%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 61%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 36%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 96%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2460, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 76%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 47%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 76%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 45%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 76%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 27%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 61%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 36%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 96%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2461, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 76%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 47%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 76%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 45%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 76%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 27%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 61%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 36%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 96%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2464, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 30%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 42%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2467, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 55%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 30%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 42%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2476, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to occupation.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2480, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 59%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 76%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see high salary if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2482, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 29%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 65%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2488, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 27%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 63%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 33%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 63%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 32%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 44%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 75%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 79%. The overall probability of high skill level is 8%.\nDoes gender positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2489, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 49%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 39%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 55%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2503, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 47%. The probability of non-male gender and high salary is 21%. The probability of male gender and high salary is 37%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2504, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2505, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 26%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 61%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 55%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 68%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 40%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 15%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 2%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 24%. The overall probability of high skill level is 11%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would gender positively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2506, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 26%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 61%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 55%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 68%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 40%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 15%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 2%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 24%. The overall probability of high skill level is 11%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would gender negatively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2507, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 37%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 73%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 37%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 73%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2512, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 48%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 37%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 73%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2513, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to occupation.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2515, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 44%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 94%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 29%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 74%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 39%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 29%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 83%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 75%. The overall probability of high skill level is 14%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would gender positively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2519, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 56%. The probability of non-male gender and high salary is 28%. The probability of male gender and high salary is 37%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2523, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 60%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 93%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 45%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 84%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 9%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 48%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 62%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 88%. The overall probability of high skill level is 7%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would gender negatively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2526, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 22%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 62%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2535, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 50%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 73%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see high salary if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2536, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 52%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 50%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 73%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2540, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 46%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 46%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 77%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2546, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to occupation.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2547, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 40%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 43%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see high salary if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2555, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 42%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 33%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 70%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 48%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 53%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 78%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2569, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 22%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 53%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 51%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 76%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 32%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 23%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 24%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 49%. The overall probability of high skill level is 19%.\nDoes gender negatively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2571, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 55%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 31%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 58%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2574, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 60%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 72%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2579, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 59%. The probability of non-male gender and high salary is 24%. The probability of male gender and high salary is 42%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2581, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 34%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 74%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 35%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 92%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 34%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 62%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 58%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 97%. The overall probability of high skill level is 18%.\nDoes gender positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2588, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 56%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 14%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 55%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2590, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2595, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to occupation.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2609, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 43%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 50%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 67%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 91%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 1%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 34%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 10%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 11%. The overall probability of high skill level is 18%.\nDoes gender negatively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 43%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 50%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 67%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 91%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 1%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 34%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 10%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 11%. The overall probability of high skill level is 18%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would gender negatively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 55%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 44%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 70%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2618, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 43%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 21%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 61%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2621, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 31%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 65%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2622, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 31%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 65%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see high salary if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is 0.01.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues affects broken bones?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 58%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 9%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 38%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 7%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 23%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is -0.19.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2647, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2653, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hospitalization status.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2655, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2658, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 59%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 5%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 5%.\nIs broken bones more likely than no broken bones overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2659, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hospitalization status.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2664, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2668, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hospitalization status.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2673, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is -0.06.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2674, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 50%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 6%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 6%.\nIs broken bones less likely than no broken bones overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2676, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is -0.04.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2677, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 50%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 4%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 12%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 3%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 10%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2679, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2681, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is -0.02.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2690, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 48%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 2%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 26%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 1%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 15%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones decrease when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2691, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 4%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 16%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 16%.\nIs broken bones more likely than no broken bones overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hospitalization status.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2694, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is -0.08.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues affects broken bones?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2695, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is -0.08.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 57%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 18%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 18%.\nIs broken bones more likely than no broken bones overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 57%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 3%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 39%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 10%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 24%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2712, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 49%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 19%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 19%.\nIs broken bones less likely than no broken bones overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2714, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 49%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 15%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 31%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 7%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 27%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2718, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 42%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 13%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 13%.\nIs broken bones more likely than no broken bones overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2724, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 40%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 8%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 24%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 5%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 18%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2725, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 40%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 8%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 24%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 5%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 18%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones decrease when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2726, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 84%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 56%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 56%.\nIs attractive appearance more likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2730, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 43%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 50%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 50%.\nIs attractive appearance less likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2735, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 41%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 33%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 62%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 29%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 67%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance increase when kindness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look at how personality correlates with appearance case by case according to relationship status. Method 2: We look directly at how personality correlates with appearance in general.\nTo understand how personality affects appearance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2740, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 56%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 8%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 3%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 6%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 8%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance increase when kindness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2743, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 46%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 8%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 13%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 6%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 12%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance increase when kindness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2744, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 45%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 8%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 24%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 4%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 31%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance increase when kindness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2746, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 86%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 60%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 60%.\nIs attractive appearance less likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2752, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 58%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 40%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 40%.\nIs attractive appearance more likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2755, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 58%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 53%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 34%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 97%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 31%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance increase when kindness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2761, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 85%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 5%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 18%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 4%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 12%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance increase when kindness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2762, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 44%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 9%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 9%.\nIs attractive appearance less likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2769, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 45%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 6%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 32%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 8%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 25%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance decrease when kindness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2774, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and attractive appearance is -0.05.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness affects attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2776, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 45%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 40%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 40%.\nIs attractive appearance less likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2778, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and attractive appearance is 0.20.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness does not affect attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2788, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and attractive appearance is 0.09.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness does not affect attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2792, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and attractive appearance is 0.14.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness does not affect attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2794, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 48%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 9%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 9%.\nIs attractive appearance more likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2797, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 50%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 6%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 6%.\nIs attractive appearance more likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 50%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 6%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 6%.\nIs attractive appearance less likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2800, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and attractive appearance is -0.01.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness affects attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2801, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and attractive appearance is -0.01.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness does not affect attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2813, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look at how personality correlates with appearance case by case according to relationship status. Method 2: We look directly at how personality correlates with appearance in general.\nTo understand how personality affects appearance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2815, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 45%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 54%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 45%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 22%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 56%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance decrease when kindness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2819, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 85%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 38%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 71%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 32%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 57%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance decrease when kindness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2822, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and attractive appearance is 0.07.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness affects attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2824, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 34%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 37%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 68%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 65%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 4%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 9%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 79%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 56%. The overall probability of confounder active is 47%.\nDoes parents' intelligence positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2828, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 42%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 56%.\nWill intelligent parents decrease the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2832, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 54%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 26%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 79%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 51%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 37%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 46%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 76%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 85%. The overall probability of confounder active is 48%.\nDoes parents' intelligence negatively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2833, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 54%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 26%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 79%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 51%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 37%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 46%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 76%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 85%. The overall probability of confounder active is 48%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would parents' intelligence negatively affect child's intelligence?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2837, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 31%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 68%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be less likely to see intelligent child if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2840, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 45%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 17%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 30%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child smaller when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2841, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2848, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 32%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 80%.\nWill intelligent parents decrease the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2851, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 47%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 17%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 38%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child smaller when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2856, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 20%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 82%.\nWill intelligent parents decrease the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2857, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 21%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 25%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 81%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 83%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 55%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 30%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 33%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 73%. The overall probability of confounder active is 56%.\nDoes parents' intelligence positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2877, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 36%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 39%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 68%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 67%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 56%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 55%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 8%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 24%. The overall probability of confounder active is 42%.\nDoes parents' intelligence positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 36%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 39%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 68%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 67%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 56%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 55%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 8%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 24%. The overall probability of confounder active is 42%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would parents' intelligence negatively affect child's intelligence?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2890, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to parents' social status.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2892, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 17%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 19%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 60%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 58%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 21%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 13%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 69%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 80%. The overall probability of confounder active is 52%.\nDoes parents' intelligence positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2893, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2894, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to parents' social status.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2895, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 46%. For children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 41%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 66%.\nIs intelligent child more likely than unintelligent child overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2906, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 35%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 35%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 69%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 70%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 57%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 69%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 35%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 28%. The overall probability of confounder active is 60%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would parents' intelligence negatively affect child's intelligence?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2910, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 35%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 77%.\nWill intelligent parents decrease the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2914, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2917, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 42%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 56%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be less likely to see intelligent child if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2924, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 30%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 24%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 61%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 65%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 53%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 48%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 64%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 57%. The overall probability of confounder active is 48%.\nDoes parents' intelligence positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2928, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 52%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 13%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 33%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child larger when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2929, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2930, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 31%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 65%.\nWill intelligent parents increase the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 23%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 28%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 51%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 53%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 42%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 25%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 93%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 74%. The overall probability of confounder active is 44%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would parents' intelligence negatively affect child's intelligence?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2937, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 41%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 15%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 22%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child smaller when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2939, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 47%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 11%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 71%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 40%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 41%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 57%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 89%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 82%. The overall probability of confounder active is 56%.\nDoes parents' intelligence positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2942, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 49%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 84%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be less likely to see intelligent child if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2945, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 41%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 29%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 34%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child smaller when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2946, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to parents' social status.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 40%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 84%.\nWill intelligent parents increase the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2970, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 39%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 35%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 65%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 68%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 39%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 48%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 79%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 82%. The overall probability of confounder active is 47%.\nDoes parents' intelligence positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2972, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 51%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 18%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 34%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child larger when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2973, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 51%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 18%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 34%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child smaller when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2984, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 65%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 51%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2988, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with college admission case by case according to effort. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with college admission in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects college admission, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2989, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 5%. For nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 78%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 46%.\nIs college admission less likely than college rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2992, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 89%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 29%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 2993, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 53%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 95%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 26%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 63%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 86%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 7%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking positively affect college admission?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 2995, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with college admission in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to effort.\nTo understand how smoking affects college admission, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 15%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 53%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 30%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 72%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 42%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 70%.\nDoes smoking positively affect college admission through effort?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 2%. The probability of nonsmoking and college admission is 67%. The probability of smoking and college admission is 1%.\nIs the chance of college admission larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3012, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 50%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 90%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 29%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 64%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 70%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 10%.\nDoes smoking positively affect college admission through effort?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3015, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 49%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 75%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 16%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 47%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 75%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 49%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect college admission through effort?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3019, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 66%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 36%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3025, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 76%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 22%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see college admission if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3030, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 53%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 27%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3034, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with college admission case by case according to effort. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with college admission in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects college admission, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3045, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 86%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 26%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3049, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 51%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 89%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 11%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 34%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 91%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 63%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking negatively affect college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3050, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 11%. The probability of nonsmoking and college admission is 76%. The probability of smoking and college admission is 3%.\nIs the chance of college admission larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3054, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 58%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 48%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3057, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 38%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 87%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 2%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 52%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 41%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 92%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking positively affect college admission?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3060, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 44%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 62%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3064, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 26%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 66%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 9%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 62%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 44%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 100%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking negatively affect college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3080, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 63%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 42%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see college admission if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3082, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 47%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 88%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 23%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 54%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 40%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 61%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking negatively affect college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3088, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 38%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 63%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 27%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 59%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 53%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 51%.\nDoes smoking positively affect college admission through effort?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3090, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 79%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 48%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3092, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 79%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 48%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see college admission if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3095, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 27%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 94%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 6%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 67%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 50%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 14%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect college admission through effort?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 17%. The probability of nonsmoking and college admission is 50%. The probability of smoking and college admission is 2%.\nIs the chance of college admission smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 82%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 42%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3110, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 17%. For nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 36%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 15%.\nIs college admission more likely than college rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3116, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with college admission case by case according to effort. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with college admission in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects college admission, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 77%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 37%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3122, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 37%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 66%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 41%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 73%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 71%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 33%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking negatively affect college admission?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3123, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 4%. For nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 58%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 52%.\nIs college admission more likely than college rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3127, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 70%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 41%.\nFor obese people, would it be more likely to see long lifespan if the person had been normal weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3138, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 71%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 46%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 40%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 22%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 49%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 55%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 94%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 76%. The overall probability of smoker is 52%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would obesity positively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3140, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how obesity correlates with lifespan in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to diabetes.\nTo understand how obesity affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3141, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 79%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 72%.\nWill obesity increase the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3144, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 6%. For normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 79%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 72%.\nIs long lifespan more likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3147, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 76%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 47%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 53%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 27%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 25%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 48%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 61%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 89%. The overall probability of smoker is 2%.\nDoes obesity negatively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3148, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 76%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 47%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 53%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 27%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 25%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 48%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 61%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 89%. The overall probability of smoker is 2%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would obesity positively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3150, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 8%. The probability of normal weight and long lifespan is 63%. The probability of obesity and long lifespan is 3%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan larger when observing obesity?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3153, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how obesity correlates with lifespan in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to diabetes.\nTo understand how obesity affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3156, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how obesity correlates with lifespan in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to diabetes.\nTo understand how obesity affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 77%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 45%.\nWill obesity decrease the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3174, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 82%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 51%.\nFor obese people, would it be less likely to see long lifespan if the person had been normal weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3180, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how obesity correlates with lifespan case by case according to diabetes. Method 2: We look directly at how obesity correlates with lifespan in general.\nTo understand how obesity affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3187, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 86%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 47%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 82%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 44%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 9%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 35%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 45%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 67%. The overall probability of smoker is 7%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would obesity positively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3191, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 91%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 59%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 59%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 35%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 26%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 67%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 56%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 92%. The overall probability of smoker is 15%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would obesity negatively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3199, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 79%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 55%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 50%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 25%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 18%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 23%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 65%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 50%. The overall probability of smoker is 13%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would obesity negatively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3204, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how obesity correlates with lifespan in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to diabetes.\nTo understand how obesity affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3206, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 83%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 71%.\nFor obese people, would it be less likely to see long lifespan if the person had been normal weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3208, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 96%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 54%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 92%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 60%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 25%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 55%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 59%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 80%. The overall probability of smoker is 18%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would obesity negatively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 91%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 71%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 69%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 43%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 28%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 20%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 57%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 70%. The overall probability of smoker is 8%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would obesity positively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3219, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 91%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 71%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 69%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 43%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 28%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 20%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 57%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 70%. The overall probability of smoker is 8%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would obesity negatively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3220, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 10%. For normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 86%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 54%.\nIs long lifespan less likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3221, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 10%. The probability of normal weight and long lifespan is 77%. The probability of obesity and long lifespan is 6%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan larger when observing obesity?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3227, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 71%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 33%.\nFor obese people, would it be more likely to see long lifespan if the person had been normal weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3229, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 75%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 57%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 56%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 19%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 27%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 8%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 54%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 73%. The overall probability of smoker is 43%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would obesity negatively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3230, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 12%. For normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 71%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 33%.\nIs long lifespan more likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3238, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 18%. The probability of normal weight and long lifespan is 76%. The probability of obesity and long lifespan is 11%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan smaller when observing obesity?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 83%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 60%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 59%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 37%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 35%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 24%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 67%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 56%. The overall probability of smoker is 5%.\nDoes obesity positively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3245, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 72%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 55%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 47%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 27%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 30%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 6%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 84%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 70%. The overall probability of smoker is 41%.\nDoes obesity positively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3248, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 8%. The probability of normal weight and long lifespan is 63%. The probability of obesity and long lifespan is 3%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan smaller when observing obesity?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3249, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 83%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 79%.\nWill obesity increase the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3253, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 19%. The probability of normal weight and long lifespan is 68%. The probability of obesity and long lifespan is 15%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan larger when observing obesity?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3257, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 20%. For normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 74%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 40%.\nIs long lifespan less likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3260, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 70%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 38%.\nFor obese people, would it be less likely to see long lifespan if the person had been normal weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3262, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 13%. For normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 70%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 38%.\nIs long lifespan less likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how obesity correlates with lifespan in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to diabetes.\nTo understand how obesity affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3273, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 81%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 49%.\nWill obesity increase the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 9%. For normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 81%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 49%.\nIs long lifespan more likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3279, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 64%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 52%.\nFor obese people, would it be less likely to see long lifespan if the person had been normal weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3288, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 58%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 40%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of scurvy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3289, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 58%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 40%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be less likely to see scurvy if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3290, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3291, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 68%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 53%.\nWill citrus intake decrease the chance of scurvy?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3292, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 68%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 53%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be less likely to see scurvy if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3298, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3299, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 89%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 52%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of scurvy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3301, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 90%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 89%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 52%.\nIs scurvy more likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3303, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 90%. The probability of absence of citrus and scurvy is 9%. The probability of citrus intake and scurvy is 47%.\nIs the chance of scurvy smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3306, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 63%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 41%.\nWill citrus intake decrease the chance of scurvy?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3310, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3314, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 82%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 41%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 25%.\nIs scurvy more likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 82%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 41%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 25%.\nIs scurvy less likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3317, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3321, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 97%. The probability of absence of citrus and scurvy is 2%. The probability of citrus intake and scurvy is 37%.\nIs the chance of scurvy smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3322, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3327, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 84%. The probability of absence of citrus and scurvy is 10%. The probability of citrus intake and scurvy is 36%.\nIs the chance of scurvy larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3328, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 84%. The probability of absence of citrus and scurvy is 10%. The probability of citrus intake and scurvy is 36%.\nIs the chance of scurvy smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 33%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 13%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect scurvy through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3336, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 66%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 30%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect scurvy through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3344, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 75%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 40%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of scurvy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3346, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 91%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 75%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 40%.\nIs scurvy less likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3347, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 91%. The probability of absence of citrus and scurvy is 7%. The probability of citrus intake and scurvy is 36%.\nIs the chance of scurvy larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3350, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 52%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 27%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect scurvy through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3362, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 97%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 55%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 36%.\nIs scurvy less likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3368, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 27%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 16%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect scurvy through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3371, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 97%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 27%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 16%.\nIs scurvy more likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3377, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 54%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 24%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect scurvy through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3378, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 99%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 54%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 24%.\nIs scurvy more likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3383, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 91%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 83%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 56%.\nIs scurvy more likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 91%. The probability of absence of citrus and scurvy is 8%. The probability of citrus intake and scurvy is 51%.\nIs the chance of scurvy smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3388, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 82%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 37%.\nWill citrus intake decrease the chance of scurvy?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3391, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 86%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 82%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 37%.\nIs scurvy less likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3396, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 47%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 15%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect scurvy through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3398, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 84%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 47%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 15%.\nIs scurvy less likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3399, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 84%. The probability of absence of citrus and scurvy is 8%. The probability of citrus intake and scurvy is 13%.\nIs the chance of scurvy smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3405, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 97%. The probability of absence of citrus and scurvy is 2%. The probability of citrus intake and scurvy is 30%.\nIs the chance of scurvy smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3406, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3408, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 74%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 48%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect scurvy through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3414, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 90%. The probability of absence of citrus and scurvy is 7%. The probability of citrus intake and scurvy is 30%.\nIs the chance of scurvy larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3415, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3417, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 33%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 14%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see scurvy if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3422, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3431, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 94%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 68%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 51%.\nIs scurvy less likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3432, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 59%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 47%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of scurvy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how supply correlates with price case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3443, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 52%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 35%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 24%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 66%.\nWill increased supply increase the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3447, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how supply correlates with price case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3450, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 54%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 32%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 18%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 54%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 32%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 18%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3452, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 70%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 54%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 38%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 72%.\nWill increased supply increase the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3461, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 64%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of increased price is 76%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of increased price is 49%.\nIs increased price more likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 43%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 36%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 52%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 82%.\nWill increased supply increase the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3464, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 66%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 19%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 20%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3465, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how supply correlates with price case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3467, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 60%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of increased price is 63%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of increased price is 40%.\nIs increased price more likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3469, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 60%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 25%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 24%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3472, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 40%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 26%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 38%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 72%.\nWill increased supply decrease the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3474, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 56%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 24%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 8%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3479, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 61%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of increased price is 77%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of increased price is 46%.\nIs increased price less likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3480, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 61%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 30%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 28%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3483, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3484, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 59%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 48%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 48%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 92%.\nWill increased supply increase the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3490, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 56%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of increased price is 71%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of increased price is 41%.\nIs increased price less likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3491, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 56%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 32%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 23%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3492, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 56%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 32%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 23%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3496, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how supply correlates with price case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3500, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 31%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 32%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 8%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3501, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3504, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 42%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 42%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 22%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3507, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 91%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 82%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 26%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 70%.\nWill increased supply increase the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how supply correlates with price case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 73%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of increased price is 88%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of increased price is 59%.\nIs increased price more likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3513, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 73%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 24%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 43%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3514, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3515, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how supply correlates with price case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3516, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 51%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of increased price is 62%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of increased price is 29%.\nIs increased price more likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3519, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how supply correlates with price case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3522, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3526, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 50%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 33%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 19%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3527, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 50%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 33%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 19%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3529, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 4%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 25%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 76%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 97%. The overall probability of male gender is 43%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3535, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 60%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 27%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 18%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3547, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 41%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 63%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 30%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3551, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 21%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 35%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 85%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 99%. The overall probability of male gender is 44%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3553, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3555, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 5%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 26%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 77%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 98%. The overall probability of male gender is 52%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3559, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 56%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 66%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 28%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3560, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 4%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 25%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 76%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 98%. The overall probability of male gender is 59%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3561, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 4%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 25%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 76%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 98%. The overall probability of male gender is 59%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3569, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 8%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 22%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 71%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 84%. The overall probability of male gender is 47%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3572, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 1%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 21%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 71%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 94%. The overall probability of male gender is 50%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3573, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 45%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 60%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 26%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3574, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 15%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 28%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 77%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 87%. The overall probability of male gender is 59%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 51%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 32%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 23%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3587, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with recovery case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3589, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 41%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 78%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 33%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 4%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 25%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 78%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 99%. The overall probability of male gender is 53%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3595, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with recovery case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 6%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 20%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 71%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 88%. The overall probability of male gender is 60%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3602, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 52%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 30%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 15%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3603, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 49%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 42%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 21%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3612, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 59%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 27%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 15%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3613, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 0%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 22%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 73%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 94%. The overall probability of male gender is 46%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3621, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 4%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 26%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 77%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 98%. The overall probability of male gender is 56%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3625, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 8%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 26%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 84%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 99%. The overall probability of male gender is 53%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3626, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 8%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 26%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 84%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 99%. The overall probability of male gender is 53%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3630, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 3%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 24%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 75%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 97%. The overall probability of male gender is 50%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3634, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with recovery case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3638, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 41%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 71%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 24%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 41%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 42%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 10%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3652, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 51%. The probability of low hospital bill and recovery is 37%. The probability of high hospital bill and recovery is 17%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3658, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 46%. The probability of low hospital bill and recovery is 34%. The probability of high hospital bill and recovery is 8%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3668, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 12%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 23%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 87%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 99%. The overall probability of old age is 45%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3669, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 48%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 68%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 34%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3673, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 51%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 61%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 20%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3679, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with recovery case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3686, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with recovery case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3692, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 56%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 67%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 32%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 56%. The probability of low hospital bill and recovery is 30%. The probability of high hospital bill and recovery is 18%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 9%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 22%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 85%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 97%. The overall probability of old age is 41%.\nWill high hospital bill decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3705, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 1%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 10%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 70%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 75%. The overall probability of old age is 44%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3708, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3713, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with recovery case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 57%. The probability of low hospital bill and recovery is 29%. The probability of high hospital bill and recovery is 13%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3722, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 5%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 19%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 80%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 93%. The overall probability of old age is 42%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3729, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 51%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 67%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 30%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3736, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 40%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 70%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 13%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3740, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 39%. The probability of low hospital bill and recovery is 36%. The probability of high hospital bill and recovery is 8%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3741, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3750, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3751, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with recovery case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3755, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 49%. The probability of low hospital bill and recovery is 33%. The probability of high hospital bill and recovery is 17%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3757, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 12%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 23%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 82%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 89%. The overall probability of old age is 51%.\nWill high hospital bill increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3764, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 57%. The probability of low hospital bill and recovery is 25%. The probability of high hospital bill and recovery is 20%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3765, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with recovery case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3766, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 4%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 34%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 62%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 94%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 42%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 6%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 16%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 79%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 90%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 49%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3775, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 55%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 28%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 20%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 57%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 25%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 21%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3781, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 57%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 25%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 21%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3782, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 6%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 38%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 63%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 95%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 50%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3789, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 3%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 15%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 79%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 91%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 60%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3791, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 55%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 78%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 36%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3793, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 52%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 60%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 39%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3794, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3801, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 48%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 30%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 18%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3804, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 6%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 19%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 80%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 93%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 50%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3806, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 37%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 63%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 22%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3807, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 37%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 39%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 8%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3809, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 46%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 60%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 39%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3811, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 46%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 32%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 18%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3817, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3818, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 3%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 37%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 64%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 95%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 46%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3820, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 52%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 60%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 39%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3821, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3824, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 8%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 38%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 64%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 97%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 50%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3830, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 3%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 33%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 60%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 93%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 49%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3832, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 10%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 23%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 84%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 96%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 43%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3834, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 75%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 18%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 33%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3835, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 0%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 31%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 58%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 91%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 53%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3837, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 49%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 53%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 38%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3839, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3842, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 64%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 80%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 51%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3845, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with recovery case by case according to kidney stone size. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3847, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 5%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 36%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 63%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 95%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 53%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3850, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 11%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 22%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 87%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 97%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 47%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3856, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3858, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 3%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 13%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 78%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 91%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 42%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3868, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 4%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 35%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 61%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 93%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 41%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3873, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 60%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 77%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 41%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3874, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 60%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 31%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 25%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3878, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 56%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 25%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 23%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 5%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 38%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 64%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 95%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 45%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be less likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3888, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 49%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 55%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 41%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3899, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with disease case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with disease in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3900, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 7%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 37%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 65%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 96%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 41%.\nWill getting the vaccine decrease the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3906, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 9%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 32%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 75%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 98%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 54%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3908, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 52%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 35%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 21%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease smaller when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3911, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 5%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 37%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 65%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 98%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 52%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be less likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3916, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 6%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 19%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 85%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 96%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 55%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be less likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3921, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 0%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 28%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 73%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 95%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 52%.\nWill getting the vaccine decrease the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3926, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 52%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 34%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 19%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease smaller when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3927, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with disease in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how vaccination affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3928, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 5%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 37%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 62%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 94%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 51%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with disease in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how vaccination affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3944, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 11%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 22%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 86%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 98%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 56%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3945, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 65%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 29%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 31%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease smaller when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3946, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with disease case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with disease in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3947, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 44%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 68%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 40%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with disease case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with disease in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3954, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 7%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 18%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 81%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 94%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 50%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3959, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 59%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 59%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 34%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 59%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 24%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 20%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease smaller when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3962, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with disease case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with disease in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3963, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 7%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 39%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 66%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 99%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 58%.\nWill getting the vaccine increase the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3965, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 45%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 36%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 20%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease smaller when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with disease in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how vaccination affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3969, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 57%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 32%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 22%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease larger when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with disease in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how vaccination affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with disease case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with disease in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 54%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 24%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 20%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease larger when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3982, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 52%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 67%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 22%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3983, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 52%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 67%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 22%.\nIs recovering from the disease less likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3985, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with disease case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with disease in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3986, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 7%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 27%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 67%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 90%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 52%.\nWill getting the vaccine increase the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3989, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 47%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 61%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 33%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3993, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with disease case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with disease in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 7%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 18%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 81%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 92%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 59%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be less likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 3995, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 51%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 77%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 37%.\nIs recovering from the disease less likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 3998, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 4%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 35%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 63%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 93%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 55%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4008, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 51%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 65%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 39%.\nIs recovering from the disease less likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4013, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality case by case according to infant's birth weight. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4015, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 37%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 70%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4022, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 23%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 58%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be less likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4026, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 70%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 77%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4027, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 70%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 77%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4028, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 70%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 77%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be less likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4032, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to infant's birth weight.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 54%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 58%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4050, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 28%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 65%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be less likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4052, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 21%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 74%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 47%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 51%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 72%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 3%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 35%. The overall probability of good health is 90%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status negatively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4065, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 12%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and high infant mortality is 19%. The probability of smoking mother and high infant mortality is 8%.\nIs the chance of high infant mortality smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4066, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to infant's birth weight.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4086, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 19%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and high infant mortality is 37%. The probability of smoking mother and high infant mortality is 16%.\nIs the chance of high infant mortality larger when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4087, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 49%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 61%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4090, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to infant's birth weight.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4091, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 47%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 50%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4092, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 47%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 50%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be less likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4093, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 64%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 35%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 64%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 28%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 46%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 80%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 24%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 58%. The overall probability of good health is 42%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status positively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4095, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 42%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 59%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4097, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 8%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 42%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 59%.\nIs high infant mortality less likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4102, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 18%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and high infant mortality is 26%. The probability of smoking mother and high infant mortality is 10%.\nIs the chance of high infant mortality larger when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4109, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 62%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 31%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 96%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 60%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 81%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 76%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 33%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 42%. The overall probability of good health is 45%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status positively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 61%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4114, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 61%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be less likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 18%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 61%.\nIs high infant mortality more likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to infant's birth weight.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4131, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 80%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4145, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 5%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 45%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 69%.\nIs high infant mortality less likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4153, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality case by case according to infant's birth weight. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4158, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 85%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 50%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 81%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 56%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 39%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 65%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 1%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 31%. The overall probability of good health is 95%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status negatively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 15%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 67%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 37%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 81%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 38%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. The overall probability of smoking is 57%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4167, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 37%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 71%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 82%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 32%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 84%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4169, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 47%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 48%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 77%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4170, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 47%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 26%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 36%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4171, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 82%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 74%. The overall probability of smoking is 42%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4172, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 82%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 74%. The overall probability of smoking is 42%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4174, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 42%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 64%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4177, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4178, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 33%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 88%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 20%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 20%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. The overall probability of smoking is 52%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4180, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 52%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 16%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 26%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4181, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 6%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 42%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 87%. The overall probability of smoking is 58%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4182, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 58%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 15%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 39%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4185, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 96%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 25%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 62%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 93%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4186, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 62%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 93%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 96%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 25%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. The overall probability of smoking is 51%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4187, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 62%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 93%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 96%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 25%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. The overall probability of smoking is 51%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4188, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 7%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 60%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 13%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 21%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 67%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4191, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 55%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 18%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 50%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4192, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 55%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 8%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 27%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4196, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 69%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 31%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 53%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 94%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4197, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 63%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 57%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 53%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4199, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 28%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 58%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 62%. The overall probability of smoking is 58%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4200, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 28%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 58%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 62%. The overall probability of smoking is 58%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4202, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 58%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 23%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 27%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4204, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 21%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 29%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 31%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. The overall probability of smoking is 55%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4205, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 55%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 37%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 56%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4206, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 55%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 16%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 31%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4207, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 55%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 16%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 31%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4208, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 72%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 72%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 31%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 80%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4209, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 62%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 66%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4210, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 62%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 19%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 41%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4213, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 37%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 43%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4214, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 37%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 43%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4217, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 72%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 53%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4220, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 63%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 25%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 22%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 73%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4223, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 61%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 41%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 43%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4224, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4225, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 16%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 93%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 23%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 50%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 12%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 38%. The overall probability of smoking is 50%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4227, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 16%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 93%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 23%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 50%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 12%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 38%. The overall probability of smoking is 50%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4228, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 50%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 14%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 18%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4229, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4230, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 41%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 68%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 34%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 83%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4231, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 34%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 83%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 41%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 68%. The overall probability of smoking is 42%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4232, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 42%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 50%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 63%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4235, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 45%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 67%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 30%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 23%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. The overall probability of smoking is 50%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 45%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 67%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 30%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 23%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. The overall probability of smoking is 50%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4238, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 50%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 37%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4239, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 50%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 20%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 19%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 45%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 59%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4243, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 48%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 50%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4244, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4246, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 71%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 25%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 57%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 26%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. The overall probability of smoking is 38%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4247, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 71%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 25%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 57%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 26%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. The overall probability of smoking is 38%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4248, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 25%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 57%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 26%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 71%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4249, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 25%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 57%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 26%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 71%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4252, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4255, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 34%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 59%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 69%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 25%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 78%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4256, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 76%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 63%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4257, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 76%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 63%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4258, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4259, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 43%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 16%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. The overall probability of smoking is 48%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4260, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 16%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 43%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4261, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 43%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 16%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. The overall probability of smoking is 48%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4263, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 83%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 48%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 74%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 56%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 83%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 56%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 83%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 83%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 48%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 74%. The overall probability of smoking is 45%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4266, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 45%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 36%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 31%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4267, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 44%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 79%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 20%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. The overall probability of smoking is 59%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4268, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 44%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 79%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 20%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. The overall probability of smoking is 59%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4270, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 41%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 66%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 9%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 87%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4271, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 9%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 87%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 41%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 66%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. The overall probability of smoking is 44%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4272, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 44%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 50%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4273, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4274, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 36%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 84%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 12%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 15%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 50%. The overall probability of smoking is 67%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 12%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 15%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 50%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 36%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 84%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4278, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 71%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 33%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4279, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 71%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 33%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4280, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 33%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 71%. The overall probability of smoking is 12%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4281, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 12%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 61%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4282, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 17%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. The overall probability of smoking is 49%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4285, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 17%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4286, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 17%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4287, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 17%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. The overall probability of smoking is 49%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4289, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4290, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 49%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 50%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4291, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 49%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 50%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4293, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 49%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 16%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 24%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4294, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4295, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 34%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 62%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 19%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. The overall probability of smoking is 29%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4296, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 62%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 19%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 34%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4299, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 29%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 42%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4301, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 29%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 30%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 12%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4302, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 54%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 92%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 39%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. The overall probability of smoking is 14%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4304, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 54%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 92%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 39%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. The overall probability of smoking is 14%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4305, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 54%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 92%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 39%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. The overall probability of smoking is 14%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4308, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4311, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 86%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 48%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 17%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 30%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 52%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 60%. The overall probability of high pollution is 44%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would gene negatively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4313, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gene correlates with lung cancer case by case according to smoking. Method 2: We look directly at how gene correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how gene affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 29%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 23%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 50%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 57%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 83%. The overall probability of high pollution is 52%.\nDoes gene positively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4320, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 61%.\nWill smoking gene decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4325, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 80%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 7%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 46%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 33%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 69%. The overall probability of high pollution is 47%.\nDoes gene negatively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4340, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 39%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 48%.\nWill smoking gene increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4344, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 56%.\nFor people with smoking genes, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had a nonsmoking gene?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4360, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 8%. For people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 53%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4365, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 56%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 67%.\nFor people with smoking genes, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had a nonsmoking gene?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4367, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 48%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 78%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 79%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 25%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 25%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 59%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 61%. The overall probability of high pollution is 54%.\nDoes gene negatively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4380, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 8%. For people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 64%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 77%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4385, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 45%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 89%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 75%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 21%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 47%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 56%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 83%. The overall probability of high pollution is 57%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would gene negatively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4389, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 26%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 22%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 30%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 27%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 54%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 65%. The overall probability of high pollution is 54%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would gene positively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4395, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 7%. For people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 54%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 63%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4401, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 3%. The probability of nonsmoking gene and lung cancer is 50%. The probability of smoking gene and lung cancer is 2%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking gene?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4403, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 58%.\nWill smoking gene decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4405, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 37%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 88%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 75%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 0%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 25%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 39%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 59%. The overall probability of high pollution is 46%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would gene negatively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 37%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 50%.\nWill smoking gene decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4410, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 72%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 66%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 6%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 16%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 53%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 49%. The overall probability of high pollution is 48%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would gene positively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4417, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 8%. For people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 39%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 48%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4421, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 39%.\nFor people with smoking genes, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had a nonsmoking gene?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4428, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 29%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 20%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 63%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 28%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 61%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 54%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 97%. The overall probability of high pollution is 45%.\nDoes gene negatively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4436, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 10%. For people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 55%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4440, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gene correlates with lung cancer case by case according to smoking. Method 2: We look directly at how gene correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how gene affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 58%.\nWill smoking gene increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4442, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 58%.\nWill smoking gene decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 78%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 21%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 47%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 45%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 78%. The overall probability of high pollution is 53%.\nDoes gene negatively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4457, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gene correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to smoking.\nTo understand how gene affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4460, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 40%.\nFor people with smoking genes, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had a nonsmoking gene?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4461, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 24%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 17%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 16%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 12%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 45%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 67%. The overall probability of high pollution is 53%.\nDoes gene negatively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4469, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 66%.\nFor people with smoking genes, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had a nonsmoking gene?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4470, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 37%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 83%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 30%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 78%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 14%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 44%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 61%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 87%. The overall probability of high pollution is 57%.\nDoes gene negatively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4473, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gene correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to smoking.\nTo understand how gene affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4477, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 13%. The probability of nonsmoking gene and lung cancer is 34%. The probability of smoking gene and lung cancer is 6%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking gene?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4483, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 47%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 73%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4485, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 19%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 38%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 14%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4486, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4491, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 50%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 73%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4493, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 36%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 57%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4495, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 2%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 36%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 57%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4499, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 45%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 60%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4500, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 12%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 45%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 60%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4501, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 57%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4502, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 57%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4503, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 10%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 57%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4506, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 68%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 79%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4507, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 68%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 79%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4509, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 7%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 68%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 79%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 7%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 68%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 79%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4511, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 7%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 63%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 6%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4512, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4513, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tar deposit.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4516, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 41%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4520, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 17%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 22%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 7%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4521, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4522, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 52%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 52%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4525, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 52%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4526, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 14%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 52%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4528, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 22%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 49%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4535, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 73%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4538, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 73%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4539, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tar deposit.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4544, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 5%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 39%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 4%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4546, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 34%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4552, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 69%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4561, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 10%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 64%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4562, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 79%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4564, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 79%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4579, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 62%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4581, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4582, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 79%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4583, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 79%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tar deposit.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 62%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4589, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tar deposit.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4590, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 74%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4592, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 18%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 74%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 18%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 38%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 13%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4600, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 14%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 34%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4601, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 14%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 34%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4602, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 14%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 34%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4608, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 30%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 55%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4612, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 30%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4615, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 11%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 30%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4616, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 11%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 27%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 6%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4623, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 37%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 50%. The probability of smoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 16%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight larger when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4631, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 43%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 86%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 40%.\nIs normal infant birth weight more likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 56%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 67%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 49%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 20%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4641, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 29%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 53%. The probability of smoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 11%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4643, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4655, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 22%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 50%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 22%.\nIs normal infant birth weight less likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4657, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4661, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 29%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 41%. The probability of smoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 3%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight larger when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4665, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 50%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 61%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 67%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 32%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4667, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 44%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 61%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 76%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 49%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4673, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4677, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4685, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 48%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 57%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 74%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 41%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4686, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 46%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 55%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 63%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 35%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 35%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 67%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 34%.\nIs normal infant birth weight more likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4689, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4699, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 49%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 40%. The probability of smoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 24%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight larger when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4702, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 45%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 58%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 63%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 27%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4704, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4709, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 63%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 32%. The probability of smoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 19%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4710, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 47%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 57%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 42%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 11%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4711, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 17%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 60%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 30%.\nIs normal infant birth weight more likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4713, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4736, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 29%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 33%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of clean water is 83%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of clean water is 68%.\nWill clean water decrease the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4741, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 72%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 61%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of clean water is 6%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of clean water is 42%.\nWill clean water increase the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4746, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 26%. For people with only polluted water, the probability of cholera contraction is 75%. For people with access to clean water, the probability of cholera contraction is 52%.\nIs cholera contraction less likely than cholera prevention overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4751, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how water quality correlates with cholera case by case according to poverty. Method 2: We look directly at how water quality correlates with cholera in general.\nTo understand how water quality affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4758, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 33%. The probability of polluted water and cholera contraction is 53%. The probability of clean water and cholera contraction is 14%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction larger when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how water quality correlates with cholera in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to poverty.\nTo understand how water quality affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4782, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 40%. The probability of polluted water and cholera contraction is 56%. The probability of clean water and cholera contraction is 11%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction larger when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4790, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 55%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 43%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of clean water is 12%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of clean water is 65%.\nWill clean water decrease the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4800, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 63%. For people with only polluted water, the probability of cholera contraction is 65%. For people with access to clean water, the probability of cholera contraction is 30%.\nIs cholera contraction less likely than cholera prevention overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4806, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 78%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 32%.\nFor husbands that set the alarm, would it be less likely to see ringing alarm if the husband had not set the alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4808, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 4%. The probability of alarm not set by husband and ringing alarm is 74%. The probability of alarm set by husband and ringing alarm is 1%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm larger when observing alarm set by husband?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4810, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 90%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 31%.\nFor husbands that set the alarm, would it be less likely to see ringing alarm if the husband had not set the alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4814, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 4%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 90%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 31%.\nIs ringing alarm less likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4816, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how husband correlates with alarm clock in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wife.\nTo understand how husband affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4818, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 17%. The probability of alarm not set by husband and ringing alarm is 69%. The probability of alarm set by husband and ringing alarm is 3%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm smaller when observing alarm set by husband?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4819, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how husband correlates with alarm clock in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wife.\nTo understand how husband affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4820, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 71%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 10%.\nFor husbands that set the alarm, would it be more likely to see ringing alarm if the husband had not set the alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4826, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 83%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 27%.\nFor husbands that set the alarm, would it be less likely to see ringing alarm if the husband had not set the alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4831, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 86%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 34%.\nFor husbands that set the alarm, would it be more likely to see ringing alarm if the husband had not set the alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4835, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 95%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 52%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 63%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 13%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 23%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 59%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would husband negatively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4846, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 13%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 72%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 24%.\nIs ringing alarm less likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4853, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 14%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 82%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 28%.\nIs ringing alarm less likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4857, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 72%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 17%.\nFor husbands that set the alarm, would it be more likely to see ringing alarm if the husband had not set the alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4860, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 9%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 72%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 17%.\nIs ringing alarm more likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4862, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look at how husband correlates with alarm clock case by case according to wife. Method 2: We look directly at how husband correlates with alarm clock in general.\nTo understand how husband affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4867, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 98%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 51%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 63%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 17%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 36%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 93%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would husband negatively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4871, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how husband correlates with alarm clock in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wife.\nTo understand how husband affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4885, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 87%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 40%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 55%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 9%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 16%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 62%.\nDoes husband positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look at how husband correlates with alarm clock case by case according to wife. Method 2: We look directly at how husband correlates with alarm clock in general.\nTo understand how husband affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4889, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 80%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 34%.\nWill alarm set by husband decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4896, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 74%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 21%.\nFor husbands that set the alarm, would it be more likely to see ringing alarm if the husband had not set the alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4897, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 74%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 21%.\nFor husbands that set the alarm, would it be less likely to see ringing alarm if the husband had not set the alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4898, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 86%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 42%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 54%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 7%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 27%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 69%.\nDoes husband negatively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4900, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 1%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 74%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 21%.\nIs ringing alarm less likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 18%. The probability of alarm not set by husband and ringing alarm is 56%. The probability of alarm set by husband and ringing alarm is 3%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm smaller when observing alarm set by husband?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4910, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 79%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 31%.\nWill alarm set by husband increase the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4912, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 79%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 31%.\nFor husbands that set the alarm, would it be less likely to see ringing alarm if the husband had not set the alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4925, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 90%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 34%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 52%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 1%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 16%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 68%.\nDoes husband positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4932, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 95%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 50%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 62%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 14%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 40%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 77%.\nDoes husband positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4936, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 7%. The probability of alarm not set by husband and ringing alarm is 71%. The probability of alarm set by husband and ringing alarm is 2%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm smaller when observing alarm set by husband?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4945, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 8%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 75%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 16%.\nIs ringing alarm more likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4947, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 74%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 22%.\nWill alarm set by husband decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4951, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 89%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 44%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 58%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 11%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 22%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 59%.\nDoes husband positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4953, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of alarm set by husband is 1%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 79%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 30%.\nIs ringing alarm less likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4954, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how husband correlates with alarm clock in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wife.\nTo understand how husband affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4955, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 90%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 25%.\nWill alarm set by husband increase the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4956, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 90%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 25%.\nWill alarm set by husband decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 94%. For husbands that don't set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 45%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 62%. For husbands that set the alarm and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 6%. For husbands that don't set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 9%. For husbands that set the alarm, the probability of alarm set by wife is 66%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would husband negatively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 87%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 55%.\nWill blowing out the candle increase the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4972, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 9%. The probability of not blowing out the candle and dark room is 79%. The probability of blowing out the candle and dark room is 5%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4976, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 5%. For people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 84%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 50%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 91%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 52%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4982, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 17%. For people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 83%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 46%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4985, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 89%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 58%.\nWill blowing out the candle increase the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4986, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 89%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 58%.\nWill blowing out the candle decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4987, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 89%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 58%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be more likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4991, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look at how the man in the room correlates with room case by case according to the candle. Method 2: We look directly at how the man in the room correlates with room in general.\nTo understand how the man in the room affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 4995, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 89%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 57%.\nWill blowing out the candle decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 4996, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 89%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 57%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be more likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 85%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 52%.\nWill blowing out the candle decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5005, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 3%. The probability of not blowing out the candle and dark room is 83%. The probability of blowing out the candle and dark room is 2%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 88%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 56%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5015, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the man in the room correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how the man in the room affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5017, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 93%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 62%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5022, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 20%. The probability of not blowing out the candle and dark room is 79%. The probability of blowing out the candle and dark room is 11%.\nIs the chance of dark room smaller when observing blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5024, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 86%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 56%.\nWill blowing out the candle increase the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5027, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 84%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 49%.\nWill blowing out the candle increase the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5032, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the man in the room correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how the man in the room affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5039, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 15%. For people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 83%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 49%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5040, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 15%. For people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 83%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 49%.\nIs dark room less likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5053, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look at how the man in the room correlates with room case by case according to the candle. Method 2: We look directly at how the man in the room correlates with room in general.\nTo understand how the man in the room affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5054, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 84%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 52%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5055, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the man in the room correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how the man in the room affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5065, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 92%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 58%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be more likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5067, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 18%. The probability of not blowing out the candle and dark room is 76%. The probability of blowing out the candle and dark room is 10%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5074, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 86%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 54%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5075, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 15%. For people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 86%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 54%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5077, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 92%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 59%.\nFor people who blow out candles, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person in the room had not blown out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5078, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of blowing out the candle is 14%. For people not blowing out candles, the probability of dark room is 92%. For people who blow out candles, the probability of dark room is 59%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5081, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 83%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 50%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 50%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 15%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 7%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 13%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5086, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 83%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 48%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 6%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 35%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 38%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5087, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 25%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 69%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 32%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5089, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 25%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 52%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 8%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5090, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5092, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 71%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 25%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 88%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 45%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 91%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5094, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 34%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 57%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 14%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5097, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 30%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 51%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 7%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5098, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 19%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 60%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 7%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5106, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 14%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 71%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 32%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 98%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5107, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 90%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 48%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 7%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 40%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 45%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5108, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5109, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5110, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 54%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 14%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 70%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 27%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 87%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5112, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 54%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 21%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 79%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 46%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 92%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5114, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 85%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 50%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 51%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 17%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 17%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 32%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5115, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 23%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 79%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 40%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5116, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 20%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 77%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 91%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 20%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 77%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 91%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5119, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 35%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 76%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 42%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5120, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 35%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 76%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 42%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5121, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 9%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 70%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 34%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 83%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5122, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 84%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 49%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 8%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 37%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 67%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5123, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 32%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 47%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 7%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5126, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5127, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5128, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 7%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 76%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 34%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 89%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 7%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 76%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 34%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 89%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5130, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 80%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 43%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 37%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 6%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 14%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 45%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5131, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 24%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 75%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 23%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5132, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 24%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 57%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 6%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5133, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 73%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 31%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 90%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 91%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5134, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 73%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 31%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 90%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 91%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5135, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 27%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 89%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 42%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5136, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 27%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 65%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 11%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5137, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5138, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 96%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 59%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 50%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 13%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 8%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 19%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5139, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 96%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 59%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 50%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 13%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 8%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 19%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5140, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 46%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 93%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 43%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5143, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 53%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 22%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 73%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 42%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 81%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5144, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 53%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 22%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 73%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 42%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 81%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5145, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 33%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 48%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 11%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5146, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5150, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5151, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 63%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 21%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 84%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 46%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 90%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5153, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 66%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 19%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 81%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 37%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 88%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5154, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 87%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 3%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 20%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 40%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5157, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 26%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 93%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 42%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5158, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 26%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 68%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 11%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5160, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 28%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 92%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 49%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 71%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 31%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 85%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 91%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5169, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5170, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 60%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 10%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 80%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 33%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 89%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5171, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 25%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 59%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 6%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5173, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 86%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 37%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 6%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 40%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 52%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5174, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 30%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 73%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 36%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5176, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5177, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 69%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 30%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 94%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 54%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 100%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5179, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5181, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 25%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 55%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 9%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5182, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how manager affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5183, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 96%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 57%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 10%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 30%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 36%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5184, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 57%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 37%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 21%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5187, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 14%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 83%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 29%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5188, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 14%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 83%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 29%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5189, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 14%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 71%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 4%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5193, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 17%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 93%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 36%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5194, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 17%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 76%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and employee being fired is 6%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5195, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 40%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 78%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5197, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 40%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 78%.\nDoes the captain positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5202, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 22%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 68%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5204, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 34%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 73%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5208, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how the captain correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5209, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5210, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 31%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 66%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5212, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 16%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 24%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 12%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5213, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 16%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 24%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 12%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5214, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 21%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 66%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 18%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 33%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 81%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5222, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 80%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 24%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 74%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5223, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how the captain correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5228, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 32%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 75%.\nDoes the captain negatively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5230, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 19%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 26%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 14%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how the captain correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5237, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5238, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 11%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 55%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5242, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 7%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 11%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 55%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5243, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5245, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how the captain correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5246, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 36%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 72%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5247, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 36%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 72%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5254, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 43%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 12%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 31%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5258, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how the captain correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5259, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5260, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 12%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 57%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5263, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how the captain correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5270, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 12%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 32%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 10%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5274, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 30%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 69%.\nDoes the captain negatively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 66%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 10%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 45%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5278, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 33%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 89%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5283, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 20%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 60%.\nDoes the captain negatively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5288, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 31%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 68%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5290, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how the captain correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5291, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5293, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 29%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 81%.\nDoes the captain positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5294, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 16%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 29%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 81%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5295, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 16%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 29%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 81%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5301, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 69%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 23%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 64%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5305, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how the captain correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5306, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 27%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 63%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5310, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5312, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 8%. The probability of the captain's order to release the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 27%. The probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner and the prisoner's death is 6%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5313, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the captain correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how the captain affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5314, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 31%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 72%.\nWill the captain's order to execute the prisoner decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5319, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 7%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 47%.\nFor captains who execute prisoners, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the captain had ordered the release of the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5321, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of the captain's order to execute the prisoner is 80%. For captains who release prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 7%. For captains who execute prisoners, the probability of the prisoner's death is 47%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5327, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 80%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 46%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 34%.\nIs wet ground more likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5329, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 80%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 9%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 28%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5331, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 40%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 50%.\nWill rainy season increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5333, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 40%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 50%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be more likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5335, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 55%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 54%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be less likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5338, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 62%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 69%.\nDoes season positively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5339, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 93%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 62%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 69%.\nIs wet ground more likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5341, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 93%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 5%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 64%.\nIs the chance of wet ground larger when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5342, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how season correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5343, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 98%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 41%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 38%.\nIs wet ground more likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5352, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 46%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 44%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be less likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5357, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how season correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5362, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 90%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 51%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 51%.\nIs wet ground less likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5367, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 57%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 58%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be more likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5369, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 90%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 57%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 58%.\nIs wet ground less likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 90%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 6%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 53%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5371, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5372, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 96%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 1%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 38%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5374, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5377, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 87%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 7%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 50%.\nIs the chance of wet ground larger when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5379, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 46%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 47%.\nWill rainy season decrease the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5382, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 54%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 43%.\nWill rainy season decrease the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5383, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 54%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 43%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be less likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5385, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 54%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 43%.\nDoes season negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 84%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 54%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 43%.\nIs wet ground more likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5389, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 36%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 35%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be more likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5392, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5400, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 43%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 53%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be more likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5405, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 46%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 64%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be less likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5408, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5413, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 85%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 6%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 35%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5416, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 46%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 57%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be less likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5420, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how season correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how season correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how season affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 66%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 62%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be more likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5425, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 66%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 62%.\nDoes season negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 96%. For people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 66%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 62%.\nIs wet ground more likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5428, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 36%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 38%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be less likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5430, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 36%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 38%.\nDoes season negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5432, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 43%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 39%.\nWill rainy season increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5435, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 50%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 51%.\nWill rainy season decrease the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5437, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 50%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 51%.\nDoes season negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5440, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 56%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 52%.\nWill rainy season decrease the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5443, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 56%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 52%.\nDoes season negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5446, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 56%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 45%.\nDoes season negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5449, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 56%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 43%.\nWill rainy season decrease the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5450, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 56%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 43%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be more likely to see wet ground if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5455, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 49%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 49%.\nWill rainy season increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5460, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of wet ground is 54%. For in the rainy season, the probability of wet ground is 54%.\nWill rainy season increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5461, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 85%. The probability of dry season and wet ground is 8%. The probability of rainy season and wet ground is 45%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 70%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 55%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5465, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 90%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 7%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 50%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5467, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 83%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 51%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be less likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5468, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 90%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 8%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 46%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5470, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look at how the camper correlates with the forest case by case according to the smoker. Method 2: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5471, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5473, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 69%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 52%.\nWill the camper lighting a match decrease the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5474, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 69%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 52%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5475, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 94%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 69%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 52%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5476, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 95%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 60%.\nWill the camper lighting a match increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5479, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 99%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 95%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 60%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5480, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 99%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 1%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 59%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5482, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 82%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 63%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be less likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5487, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 95%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 89%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 55%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5490, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 75%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 59%.\nWill the camper lighting a match increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5494, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 83%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 45%.\nWill the camper lighting a match increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5497, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look at how the camper correlates with the forest case by case according to the smoker. Method 2: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5501, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 97%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 73%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 57%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5507, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 91%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 86%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 72%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 91%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 8%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 66%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5512, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 83%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 48%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be less likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5522, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 92%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 78%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 60%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5529, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 71%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 59%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be less likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5532, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5533, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 80%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 47%.\nWill the camper lighting a match decrease the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5534, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 80%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 47%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 93%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 79%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 65%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5544, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5550, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 81%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 64%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be less likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5551, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 82%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 50%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5552, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 93%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 82%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 50%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5555, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 71%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 57%.\nWill the camper lighting a match increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5557, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 95%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 71%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 57%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5559, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 97%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 65%.\nFor campers who light a match, would it be less likely to see the forest on fire if the camper had not lit a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5560, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5561, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 73%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 57%.\nWill the camper lighting a match decrease the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5562, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 99%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 1%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 56%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 99%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 1%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 56%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5564, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look at how the camper correlates with the forest case by case according to the smoker. Method 2: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5565, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 87%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 53%.\nWill the camper lighting a match decrease the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5567, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 100%. For campers who do not light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 87%. For campers who light a match, the probability of the forest on fire is 53%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5570, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of the camper lighting a match is 100%. The probability of the camper not lighting a match and the forest on fire is 0%. The probability of the camper lighting a match and the forest on fire is 53%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5571, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5577, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how the camper correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how the camper affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5579, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 37%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 71%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5581, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 9%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 33%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 6%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5587, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 2%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 46%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 1%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5589, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 52%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 85%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be less likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5590, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 8%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 54%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 90%.\nIs arriving to school on time more likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5600, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5606, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 42%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 76%.\nWill waking up late decrease the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 46%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 79%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be less likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 11%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 47%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 10%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 12%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 37%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 9%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5629, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 5%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 52%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 87%.\nIs arriving to school on time more likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 17%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 38%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 72%.\nIs arriving to school on time more likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5633, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 17%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 32%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 12%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5634, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5639, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 11%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 46%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 10%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5644, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5645, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 46%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 78%.\nWill waking up late increase the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5646, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 46%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 78%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5647, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 5%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 46%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 78%.\nIs arriving to school on time more likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5654, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 9%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 58%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 89%.\nIs arriving to school on time less likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5658, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 49%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 84%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5661, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5667, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 46%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 78%.\nWill waking up late increase the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5669, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 11%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 46%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 78%.\nIs arriving to school on time less likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5673, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with Alice arriving to school in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to traffic.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5680, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 47%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 86%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5683, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 6%. The probability of waking up on time and arriving to school on time is 44%. The probability of waking up late and arriving to school on time is 5%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5686, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 39%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 70%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5689, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of arriving to school on time is 48%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of arriving to school on time is 80%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see arriving to school on time if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5691, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 54%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 16%.\nWill tanning salon treatment decrease the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 89%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 54%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 16%.\nIs tanned skin less likely than pale skin overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5695, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 62%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 18%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be less likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5697, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to going to the beach.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 84%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 12%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 14%.\nIs the chance of tanned skin larger when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5702, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to going to the beach.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5704, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 59%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 21%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5705, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to going to the beach.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5708, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 74%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 42%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be less likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5710, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 85%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 11%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 36%.\nIs the chance of tanned skin larger when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5716, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to going to the beach.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 61%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 15%.\nWill tanning salon treatment decrease the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 93%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 5%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 26%.\nIs the chance of tanned skin larger when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5723, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 70%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 28%.\nWill tanning salon treatment decrease the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5724, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 70%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 28%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5728, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 72%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 30%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5733, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 53%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 15%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5735, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 93%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 53%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 15%.\nIs tanned skin more likely than pale skin overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5736, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 69%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 28%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5743, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 82%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 12%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 19%.\nIs the chance of tanned skin smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5750, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 100%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 83%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 33%.\nIs tanned skin more likely than pale skin overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5753, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 56%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 20%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5757, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 99%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 66%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 24%.\nIs tanned skin less likely than pale skin overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5764, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to going to the beach.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5765, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 75%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 35%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5766, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 85%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 75%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 35%.\nIs tanned skin more likely than pale skin overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5767, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to going to the beach.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5776, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 69%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 23%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be less likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5783, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to going to the beach.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5789, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 50%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 12%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5796, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 71%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 19%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see tanned skin if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5809, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with skin in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects skin, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5810, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of tanned skin is 72%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of tanned skin is 33%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of tanned skin?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5814, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 100%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 0%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and tanned skin is 33%.\nIs the chance of tanned skin smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5820, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 96%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 71%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 49%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 26%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 66%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 82%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5826, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 16%. The probability of taking the stairs and penguin death is 53%. The probability of taking the elevator and penguin death is 1%.\nIs the chance of penguin death larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5842, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 1%. The probability of taking the stairs and penguin death is 63%. The probability of taking the elevator and penguin death is 0%.\nIs the chance of penguin death smaller when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5851, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 71%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 47%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 35%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 15%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 4%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 54%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect penguin survival through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5855, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 56%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 64%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 26%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 17%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 12%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 99%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5861, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 72%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 38%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 20%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 0%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 43%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 89%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision negatively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 2%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 94%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 45%.\nIs penguin death less likely than penguin lives overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5892, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 1%. The probability of taking the stairs and penguin death is 79%. The probability of taking the elevator and penguin death is 0%.\nIs the chance of penguin death larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5894, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 70%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 29%.\nWill taking the elevator increase the chance of penguin death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5901, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 78%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 84%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 20%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 31%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 65%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 87%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect penguin survival through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5902, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 78%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 84%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 20%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 31%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 65%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 87%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 78%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 84%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 20%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 31%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 65%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 87%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision negatively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5904, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 19%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 82%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 30%.\nIs penguin death less likely than penguin lives overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5906, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 70%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 29%.\nWill taking the elevator increase the chance of penguin death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5915, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 10%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 64%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 25%.\nIs penguin death more likely than penguin lives overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5921, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 15%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 68%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 21%.\nIs penguin death less likely than penguin lives overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5922, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 15%. The probability of taking the stairs and penguin death is 58%. The probability of taking the elevator and penguin death is 3%.\nIs the chance of penguin death larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5927, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 75%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 73%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 16%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 32%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 20%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 100%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5928, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 11%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 75%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 32%.\nIs penguin death less likely than penguin lives overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5930, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with penguin survival case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with penguin survival in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects penguin survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5935, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 8%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 72%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 24%.\nIs penguin death more likely than penguin lives overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5938, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 65%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 50%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 13%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 12%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 21%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 67%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect penguin survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5941, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 4%. The probability of taking the stairs and penguin death is 59%. The probability of taking the elevator and penguin death is 0%.\nIs the chance of penguin death larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5948, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 4%. The probability of taking the stairs and penguin death is 76%. The probability of taking the elevator and penguin death is 1%.\nIs the chance of penguin death larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5950, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how my decision correlates with penguin survival in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to penguin mood.\nTo understand how my decision affects penguin survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5951, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 75%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 30%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be less likely to see penguin death if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5953, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 85%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 59%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 23%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 40%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 68%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect penguin survival through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5957, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 90%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 91%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 48%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 54%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 33%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 75%.\nDoes my decision positively affect penguin survival through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 90%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 91%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 48%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 54%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 33%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 75%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect penguin survival through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5964, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin death is 87%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin death is 29%.\nWill taking the elevator decrease the chance of penguin death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 87%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 60%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of penguin death is 38%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of penguin death is 14%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 2%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 40%.\nDoes my decision positively affect penguin survival through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5969, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 2%. The probability of taking the stairs and penguin death is 85%. The probability of taking the elevator and penguin death is 0%.\nIs the chance of penguin death smaller when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 47%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 44%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 57%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 66%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5982, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 6%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 57%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 66%.\nIs smallpox survival less likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5985, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 2%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 43%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 54%.\nIs smallpox survival more likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5987, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival in general.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 5991, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 35%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 40%.\nDoes vaccination status positively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5993, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 6%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 33%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 2%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 5997, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 2%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 28%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 1%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6000, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 49%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 49%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 56%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 55%.\nDoes vaccination status negatively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6008, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vaccination reaction.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6009, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 41%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 42%.\nWill vaccination increase the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6012, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 10%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 41%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 42%.\nIs smallpox survival less likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6014, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 43%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 41%.\nDoes vaccination status positively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6015, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival in general.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6018, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 2%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 40%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 1%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival smaller when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6020, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 47%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 52%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6021, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 16%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 39%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 9%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6028, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vaccination reaction.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6029, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 55%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 55%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6031, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 55%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 55%.\nDoes vaccination status negatively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 7%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 52%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 4%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival smaller when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6038, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 45%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 49%.\nWill vaccination increase the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6046, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 56%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 52%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6051, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 59%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 53%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6055, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 4%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 59%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 53%.\nIs smallpox survival less likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6057, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 42%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 33%.\nDoes vaccination status negatively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6058, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 12%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 42%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 33%.\nIs smallpox survival more likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6059, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 12%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 38%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 4%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival smaller when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6065, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 10%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 38%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 6%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6067, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 27%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 37%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6068, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 27%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 37%.\nDoes vaccination status positively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6073, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 9%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 49%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 4%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6078, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 51%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 44%.\nDoes vaccination status positively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6080, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 1%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 51%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 44%.\nIs smallpox survival less likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 62%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 62%.\nDoes vaccination status negatively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6085, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 10%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 62%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 62%.\nIs smallpox survival more likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6087, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with smallpox survival in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vaccination reaction.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6091, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 51%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 64%.\nWill vaccination increase the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6096, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 10%. The probability of lack of vaccination and smallpox survival is 46%. The probability of vaccination and smallpox survival is 7%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 61%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of smallpox survival is 50%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be less likely to see smallpox survival if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6106, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 48%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 76%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 19%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 47%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 50%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 92%.\nDoes medication positively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6109, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 69%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 98%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 36%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 61%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 70%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 55%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 80%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 22%.\nWill taking medication decrease the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6121, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 6%. The probability of not taking medication and healthy heart is 75%. The probability of taking medication and healthy heart is 1%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart smaller when observing taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6122, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look at how medication correlates with heart condition case by case according to blood pressure. Method 2: We look directly at how medication correlates with heart condition in general.\nTo understand how medication affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6127, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 19%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 64%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 31%.\nIs healthy heart more likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6137, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 48%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 77%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 20%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 46%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 37%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 60%.\nDoes medication negatively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6141, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 38%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 69%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 4%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 34%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 25%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 80%.\nDoes medication negatively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6148, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 43%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 71%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 18%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 43%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 42%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 49%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6156, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 63%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 91%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 37%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 67%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 42%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 62%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication negatively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6158, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 1%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 75%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 56%.\nIs healthy heart less likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6168, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 19%. The probability of not taking medication and healthy heart is 50%. The probability of taking medication and healthy heart is 11%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart larger when observing taking medication?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6171, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 64%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 21%.\nFor people taking medication, would it be more likely to see healthy heart if the person had taken no medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6172, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 48%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 80%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 7%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 49%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 51%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 33%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6175, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 37%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 37%.\nWill taking medication decrease the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6176, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 35%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 70%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 7%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 44%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 7%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 82%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication negatively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6177, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 6%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 37%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 37%.\nIs healthy heart less likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6192, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 9%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 95%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 28%.\nIs healthy heart more likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6200, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 46%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 68%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 7%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 43%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 82%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 45%.\nDoes medication negatively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6202, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 9%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 64%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 23%.\nIs healthy heart less likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6206, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 19%. The probability of not taking medication and healthy heart is 52%. The probability of taking medication and healthy heart is 10%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart smaller when observing taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6214, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 3%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 45%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 31%.\nIs healthy heart less likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6215, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 71%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 43%.\nWill taking medication increase the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look at how medication correlates with heart condition case by case according to blood pressure. Method 2: We look directly at how medication correlates with heart condition in general.\nTo understand how medication affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6219, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how medication correlates with heart condition in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to blood pressure.\nTo understand how medication affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6223, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 56%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 83%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 27%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 51%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 41%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 71%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6225, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 18%. The probability of not taking medication and healthy heart is 55%. The probability of taking medication and healthy heart is 8%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart smaller when observing taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6226, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication, the probability of healthy heart is 62%. For people taking medication, the probability of healthy heart is 35%.\nWill taking medication decrease the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6229, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 14%. The probability of not taking medication and healthy heart is 53%. The probability of taking medication and healthy heart is 5%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart larger when observing taking medication?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6230, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of taking medication is 14%. The probability of not taking medication and healthy heart is 53%. The probability of taking medication and healthy heart is 5%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart smaller when observing taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6249, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people not taking any medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 40%. For people not taking any medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 69%. For people taking medication and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 7%. For people taking medication and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 44%. For people not taking any medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 54%. For people taking medication, the probability of high blood pressure is 28%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would medication negatively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6255, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look at how medication correlates with heart condition case by case according to blood pressure. Method 2: We look directly at how medication correlates with heart condition in general.\nTo understand how medication affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6259, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.20.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance affects talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.01.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance does not affect talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6265, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 85%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 98%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 91%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 96%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 90%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent increase when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6266, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 85%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 98%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 91%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 96%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 90%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent decrease when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6268, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6272, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 93%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 80%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 80%.\nIs talent more likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6274, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.18.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance does not affect talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 96%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 88%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 63%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 86%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 35%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent decrease when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6276, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 81%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 92%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 92%.\nIs talent more likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.06.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance does not affect talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6283, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 95%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 93%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 93%.\nIs talent less likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6285, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6287, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 91%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 84%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 84%.\nIs talent less likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6295, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.09.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance affects talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6296, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 94%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of talent is 83%. For people considered attractive, the probability of talent is 83%.\nIs talent less likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6297, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.08.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance does not affect talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6298, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 94%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 90%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 78%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 88%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 68%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent increase when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6300, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6311, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 96%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 98%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 95%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 98%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 93%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent increase when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6314, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 89%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 99%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 97%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 99%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 57%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent decrease when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6316, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6319, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6320, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6323, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 81%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 94%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 83%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 92%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 75%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent increase when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6328, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6335, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 94%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 97%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 87%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 95%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 62%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent decrease when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6342, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 86%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 92%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 81%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 90%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 77%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent increase when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6344, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6345, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.06.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance affects talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6347, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and talent is -0.44.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance affects talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6351, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 91%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 97%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 91%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of talent is 97%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of talent is 82%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent increase when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6362, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 21%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 25%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 34%.\nIs low cholesterol less likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 21%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 20%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 7%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol larger when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6365, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 15%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 77%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 64%.\nIs low cholesterol more likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6367, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level in general.\nTo understand how drug taken affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 35%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 45%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 26%.\nIs low cholesterol less likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6375, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 37%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 66%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 43%.\nIs low cholesterol less likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6377, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level in general.\nTo understand how drug taken affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6396, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drug taken affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6400, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 32%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 31%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 50%.\nIs low cholesterol more likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6401, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 39%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 30%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 17%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol larger when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6402, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 39%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 30%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 17%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol smaller when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6403, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with cholesterol level in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drug taken affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6406, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 13%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 87%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 47%.\nIs low cholesterol more likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 13%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 76%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 6%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol smaller when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6409, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 11%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 11%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 85%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 51%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs increase the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6410, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 11%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 11%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 85%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 51%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs decrease the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6419, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 51%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 43%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 25%.\nIs low cholesterol less likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6428, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 16%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 49%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 7%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol smaller when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6431, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 45%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 82%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of low cholesterol is 89%.\nIs low cholesterol more likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6432, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 45%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 45%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and low cholesterol is 40%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol larger when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6440, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 22%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 51%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 22%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 51%.\nDoes education level positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6444, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6449, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 96%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 2%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 62%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6455, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 24%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 47%.\nDoes education level positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6456, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 24%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 47%.\nDoes education level negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6459, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 82%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 4%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 39%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6470, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 88%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 5%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 50%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6472, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 81%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 43%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 72%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6473, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 81%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 8%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 59%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6475, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 27%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 41%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6477, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 27%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 41%.\nDoes education level negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6478, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 92%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 27%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 41%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6481, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 29%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 52%.\nDoes education level positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6482, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 89%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 29%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 52%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6486, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 12%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 26%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6487, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 12%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 26%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6488, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 88%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 12%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 26%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6492, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 67%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 80%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6493, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 67%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 80%.\nDoes education level negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6494, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 82%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 67%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 80%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6495, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6499, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 27%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 65%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6500, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 89%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 3%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 58%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6503, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 51%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 86%.\nDoes education level negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 37%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 46%.\nDoes education level negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6511, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6514, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 29%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 56%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6518, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6521, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 18%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 38%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6523, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 19%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 69%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6525, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 19%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 69%.\nDoes education level positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6527, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 90%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 2%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 62%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6529, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 45%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 61%.\nDoes education level negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6536, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 44%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 54%.\nDoes education level positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6537, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 90%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 44%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 54%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6538, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 90%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 44%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 54%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6539, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6540, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6547, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6551, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 57%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 84%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6552, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 57%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 84%.\nDoes education level negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6553, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 94%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 57%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 84%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6557, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 61%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 81%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6559, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 61%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 81%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6572, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 56%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 70%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6574, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 82%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 56%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 70%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6576, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6577, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 37%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 54%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 81%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 60%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 66%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6588, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 63%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 78%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 59%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 19%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6591, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 59%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 31%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 6%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6599, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 50%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 34%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 16%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6606, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 39%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 51%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 89%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 50%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 40%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 51%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 78%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 37%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 43%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 61%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 34%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6614, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 53%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 64%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 80%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 50%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6615, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 77%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 80%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 46%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 50%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 30%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 7%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6629, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 50%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 30%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 7%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6631, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 41%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 59%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 49%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 9%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6637, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 52%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 33%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 20%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6638, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 11%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 27%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 93%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 52%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 55%. The probability of high school degree or lower and high salary is 21%. The probability of college degree or higher and high salary is 5%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 39%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 49%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 57%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 30%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6665, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 42%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 60%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 80%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 26%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6670, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 59%. For people without a college degree, the probability of high salary is 67%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of high salary is 25%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6671, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with salary case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6674, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how education level affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6675, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 99%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 87%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 87%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6682, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 97%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 95%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 95%.\nIs being hard-working more likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6683, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and being hard-working is -0.02.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how talent correlates with effort case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and being hard-working is -0.08.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent does not affect being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6689, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 98%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 96%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 96%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6690, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 98%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 99%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 94%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 98%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 93%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6694, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how talent correlates with effort case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6695, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and being hard-working is -0.01.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 89%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 93%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 73%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 87%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 72%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6697, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 94%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 83%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 83%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6702, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how talent correlates with effort case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6711, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 97%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 95%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 82%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 94%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 69%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working decrease when talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6715, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 91%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 98%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 98%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and being hard-working is -0.33.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6722, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how talent correlates with effort case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6732, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and being hard-working is -0.14.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6741, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 95%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 88%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 88%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6746, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 97%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 93%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 93%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6747, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how talent correlates with effort case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6753, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6758, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and being hard-working is -0.02.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6760, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 82%. For students who are not talented, the probability of being hard-working is 89%. For students who are talented, the probability of being hard-working is 89%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6762, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how talent correlates with effort in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how talent affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6763, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 82%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 99%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 82%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 96%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 53%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working decrease when talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6766, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 98%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 95%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 83%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 93%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 71%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6768, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 99%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 99%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 91%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 97%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 88%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6772, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 86%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 100%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 94%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 98%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 92%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 58%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 34%.\nWill encouragement decrease the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6779, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 76%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 54%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 56%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 28%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 77%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 36%.\nDoes encouragement level negatively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6781, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 76%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 54%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 56%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 28%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 77%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 36%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through studying habit, would encouragement level negatively affect exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 57%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 34%.\nWill encouragement increase the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6786, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 57%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 34%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be less likely to see high exam score if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6789, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look at how encouragement level correlates with exam score case by case according to studying habit. Method 2: We look directly at how encouragement level correlates with exam score in general.\nTo understand how encouragement level affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 59%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 47%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be less likely to see high exam score if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6809, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 91%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 71%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 66%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 42%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 95%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 61%.\nDoes encouragement level negatively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6811, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 91%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 72%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 52%.\nIs high exam score more likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6814, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 74%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 36%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 43%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 9%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 99%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 50%.\nDoes encouragement level positively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6822, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 60%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 44%.\nWill encouragement decrease the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6825, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 94%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 74%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 65%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 40%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 59%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 2%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through studying habit, would encouragement level negatively affect exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6831, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 53%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 31%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be less likely to see high exam score if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6836, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 84%. The probability of discouragement and high exam score is 10%. The probability of encouragement and high exam score is 37%.\nIs the chance of high exam score smaller when observing encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6838, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 71%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 41%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 35%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 10%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 52%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 5%.\nDoes encouragement level negatively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6843, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 98%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 65%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 62%.\nIs high exam score more likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6844, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 98%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 65%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 62%.\nIs high exam score less likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6846, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 59%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 41%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be less likely to see high exam score if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6849, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how encouragement level correlates with exam score in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to studying habit.\nTo understand how encouragement level affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6852, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 68%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 46%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 33%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 2%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 35%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 6%.\nDoes encouragement level positively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6860, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 50%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 39%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be more likely to see high exam score if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6864, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 98%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 50%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 39%.\nIs high exam score less likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6873, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 80%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 55%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 48%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 25%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 79%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 40%.\nDoes encouragement level positively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 98%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 72%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 46%.\nIs high exam score less likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6884, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 61%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 45%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be less likely to see high exam score if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how encouragement level correlates with exam score in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to studying habit.\nTo understand how encouragement level affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 53%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 39%.\nWill encouragement decrease the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6896, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 54%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 45%.\nWill encouragement increase the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6898, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 91%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 54%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 45%.\nIs high exam score less likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6899, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 91%. The probability of discouragement and high exam score is 5%. The probability of encouragement and high exam score is 41%.\nIs the chance of high exam score larger when observing encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6901, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how encouragement level correlates with exam score in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to studying habit.\nTo understand how encouragement level affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6902, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 75%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 48%.\nWill encouragement decrease the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6912, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 67%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of high exam score is 61%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be less likely to see high exam score if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6928, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 95%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 74%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 72%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 45%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 60%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 31%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through studying habit, would encouragement level positively affect exam score?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how encouragement level correlates with exam score in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to studying habit.\nTo understand how encouragement level affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6947, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 90%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 44%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 15%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 77%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 6%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 67%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 22%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 37%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 18%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6969, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 11%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 37%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 18%.\nIs admission acceptance more likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 43%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 83%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 18%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 53%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 88%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 30%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6973, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with admission status case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 42%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 73%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 44%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 65%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 55%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 1%.\nDoes gender negatively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 6980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 58%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 89%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 32%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 65%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 65%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 29%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6984, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 17%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 81%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 37%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 63%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 70%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 9%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 6996, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 51%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 33%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7001, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 8%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 47%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 3%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 8%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 47%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 3%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 53%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 41%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7012, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 26%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 67%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 38%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 63%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 65%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 11%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7021, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with admission status case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7025, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 37%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 68%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 7%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 33%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 99%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 55%.\nDoes gender negatively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7028, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7029, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 40%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 31%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 17%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 40%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 31%.\nIs admission acceptance more likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7034, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 17%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 33%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 5%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7039, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 12%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 74%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 34%.\nIs admission acceptance more likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7040, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 12%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 65%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 4%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7047, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 8%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 68%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 59%.\nIs admission acceptance less likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7054, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with admission status case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7062, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with admission status case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7063, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 42%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 29%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7065, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 25%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 60%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 21%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 72%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 48%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 17%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7067, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 3%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 40%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 1%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7069, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 74%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 21%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 15%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 74%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 21%.\nIs admission acceptance less likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7090, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 81%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 42%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7097, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 57%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 28%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7102, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 47%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 65%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 51%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 70%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 14%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 60%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 28%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 68%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 12%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7106, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 63%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 80%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 34%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 56%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 78%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 100%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 42%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 70%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 20%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7114, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 89%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 77%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 45%.\nIs admission acceptance more likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7116, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 89%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 9%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 40%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7118, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 40%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 32%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7119, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 34%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 54%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 28%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 41%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 25%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 64%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 9%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 71%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 19%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7130, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 41%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 64%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 64%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 87%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 8%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 39%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 44%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 72%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 1%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7136, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 97%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 2%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 47%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7137, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7138, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 38%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 40%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7139, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 38%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 40%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7142, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 12%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 34%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 8%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7143, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 12%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 34%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 8%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7147, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 66%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 89%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 43%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 58%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 44%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 78%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 4%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 55%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 4%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect admission status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7150, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 65%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 65%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7164, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 56%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 88%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7169, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 93%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 5%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 34%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7175, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 26%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 64%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7191, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 57%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 57%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7202, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 19%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 40%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 15%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7204, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 79%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 39%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see admission acceptance if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7205, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 60%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 90%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 34%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 58%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 61%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 91%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 19%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 48%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 6%.\nDoes gender negatively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7208, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 59%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 55%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7213, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 2%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 58%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 1%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7216, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 35%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 58%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 63%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 83%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 25%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 48%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 51%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 72%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 8%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7220, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with admission status in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects admission status, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7230, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 16%. The probability of non-male gender and admission acceptance is 48%. The probability of male gender and admission acceptance is 10%.\nIs the chance of admission acceptance smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 66%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 89%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 42%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of admission acceptance is 43%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 33%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 66%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 0%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 33%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 6%.\nDoes gender positively affect admission status through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7243, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 84%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 74%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 42%.\nIs admission acceptance more likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7246, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 13%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 61%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 65%.\nIs admission acceptance less likely than admission rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7258, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of admission acceptance is 37%. For individuals who are male, the probability of admission acceptance is 68%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of admission acceptance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7262, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 60%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 39%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see high salary if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7276, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to occupation.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 53%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 35%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7283, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 54%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 41%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see high salary if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7285, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 65%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 35%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 53%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 29%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 70%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 35%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 74%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 48%. The overall probability of high skill level is 92%.\nDoes gender positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7289, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 17%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 31%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see high salary if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7299, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7313, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 52%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 37%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see high salary if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 19%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 52%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 37%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 50%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 51%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7324, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 29%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 49%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7328, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 67%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 46%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 42%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 23%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 99%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 70%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 64%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 38%. The overall probability of high skill level is 92%.\nDoes gender positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 44%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 29%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see high salary if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7334, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 60%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 14%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 48%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 6%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 84%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 29%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 96%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 41%. The overall probability of high skill level is 92%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would gender negatively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7341, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7342, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 63%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 42%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 38%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 21%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 70%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 48%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 40%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 19%. The overall probability of high skill level is 82%.\nDoes gender negatively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7344, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 17%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 36%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 31%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 28%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 51%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7356, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 67%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 45%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 42%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 25%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 66%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 44%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 39%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 9%. The overall probability of high skill level is 80%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would gender negatively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7372, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 96%. The probability of non-male gender and high salary is 1%. The probability of male gender and high salary is 42%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7376, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 8%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 50%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 32%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7378, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7382, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 13%. The probability of non-male gender and high salary is 41%. The probability of male gender and high salary is 5%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 37%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 17%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 62%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 41%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 49%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 22%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 77%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 49%. The overall probability of high skill level is 92%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would gender positively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7387, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 46%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 35%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7389, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 62%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 39%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 41%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 19%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 90%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 67%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 58%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 26%. The overall probability of high skill level is 92%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would gender negatively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7390, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 2%. The probability of non-male gender and high salary is 45%. The probability of male gender and high salary is 1%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7392, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 38%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 34%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see high salary if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7396, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to occupation.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7401, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 39%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 56%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7405, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how gender affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7409, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 18%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 43%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 47%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7414, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 62%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 38%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 37%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 16%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 92%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 63%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 45%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 25%. The overall probability of high skill level is 82%.\nDoes gender negatively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7415, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 62%. For individuals who are not male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 38%. For individuals who are male and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 37%. For individuals who are male and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 16%. For individuals who are not male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 92%. For individuals who are not male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 63%. For individuals who are male and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 45%. For individuals who are male and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 25%. The overall probability of high skill level is 82%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would gender positively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7417, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 13%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of high salary is 46%. For individuals who are male, the probability of high salary is 31%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7418, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 13%. The probability of non-male gender and high salary is 40%. The probability of male gender and high salary is 4%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7422, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is -0.02.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues affects broken bones?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7425, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 41%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 93%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 69%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 93%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 75%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7428, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 94%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 93%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 70%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 89%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 24%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones decrease when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7429, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 96%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 96%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 61%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 94%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 74%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones decrease when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7432, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is -0.02.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7435, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is 0.10.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues affects broken bones?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7438, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hospitalization status.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7442, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is 0.03.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7443, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 88%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 94%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 77%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 93%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 81%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones decrease when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7444, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is -0.25.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues affects broken bones?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7446, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 44%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 92%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 84%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 92%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 57%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones decrease when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7448, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 93%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 81%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 81%.\nIs broken bones less likely than no broken bones overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7454, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hospitalization status.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7455, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 93%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 99%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 74%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 91%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 69%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7458, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is 0.09.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues affects broken bones?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 59%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 91%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 72%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 91%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 47%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7471, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is -0.16.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7486, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 84%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 82%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 82%.\nIs broken bones more likely than no broken bones overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7489, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 84%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 92%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 71%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 88%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 58%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7493, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 57%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 98%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of broken bones is 98%.\nIs broken bones less likely than no broken bones overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7496, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with broken bones in general.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7500, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 45%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 98%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 96%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 98%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 95%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7503, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and broken bones is -0.18.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 5%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 92%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 73%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 86%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 71%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance increase when kindness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7512, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how personality correlates with appearance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to relationship status.\nTo understand how personality affects appearance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7518, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and attractive appearance is -0.04.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness affects attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7519, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 19%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 12%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 1%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 2%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 1%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance decrease when kindness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7523, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 16%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 90%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 90%.\nIs attractive appearance more likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how personality correlates with appearance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to relationship status.\nTo understand how personality affects appearance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7531, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look at how personality correlates with appearance case by case according to relationship status. Method 2: We look directly at how personality correlates with appearance in general.\nTo understand how personality affects appearance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7545, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 11%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 11%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 11%.\nIs attractive appearance less likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7547, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and attractive appearance is -0.03.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness affects attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7551, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how personality correlates with appearance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to relationship status.\nTo understand how personality affects appearance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7552, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and attractive appearance is -0.07.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness affects attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7556, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and attractive appearance is -0.01.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness does not affect attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7557, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 20%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 27%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 5%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 14%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 4%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance decrease when kindness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7568, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 16%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 100%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 96%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 99%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 95%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance increase when kindness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7570, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 14%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 92%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 92%.\nIs attractive appearance more likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7576, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and attractive appearance is -0.02.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness does not affect attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7583, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 94%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 97%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of attractive appearance is 97%.\nIs attractive appearance more likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7590, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and attractive appearance is -0.05.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness affects attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7592, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 90%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 56%.\nWill intelligent parents decrease the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 6%. For children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 90%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 56%.\nIs intelligent child less likely than unintelligent child overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7599, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 62%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 47%.\nWill intelligent parents decrease the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7601, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 93%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 60%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 63%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 34%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 98%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 91%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 56%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 51%. The overall probability of confounder active is 49%.\nDoes parents' intelligence positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7604, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 3%. For children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 62%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 47%.\nIs intelligent child less likely than unintelligent child overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7605, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 3%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 60%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 2%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child larger when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7606, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 83%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 55%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 52%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 24%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 71%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 56%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 29%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 47%. The overall probability of confounder active is 42%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would parents' intelligence negatively affect child's intelligence?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7616, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 55%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 47%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 13%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 7%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 77%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 54%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 43%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 20%. The overall probability of confounder active is 48%.\nDoes parents' intelligence positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 55%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 47%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 13%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 7%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 77%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 54%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 43%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 20%. The overall probability of confounder active is 48%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would parents' intelligence negatively affect child's intelligence?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7620, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 82%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 46%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 48%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 14%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 63%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 68%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 16%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 30%. The overall probability of confounder active is 53%.\nDoes parents' intelligence negatively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7626, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 7%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 79%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 3%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child smaller when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7633, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 9%. For children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 86%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 48%.\nIs intelligent child less likely than unintelligent child overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7643, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7647, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 78%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 54%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be more likely to see intelligent child if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7651, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 77%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 65%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 28%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 17%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 93%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 63%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 57%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 29%. The overall probability of confounder active is 44%.\nDoes parents' intelligence positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7653, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 77%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 65%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 28%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 17%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 93%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 63%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 57%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 29%. The overall probability of confounder active is 44%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would parents' intelligence negatively affect child's intelligence?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7655, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 14%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 58%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 3%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child larger when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7660, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 11%. For children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 71%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 41%.\nIs intelligent child more likely than unintelligent child overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7663, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 58%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 33%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be less likely to see intelligent child if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7675, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 53%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 36%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be more likely to see intelligent child if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7697, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 90%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 47%.\nWill intelligent parents decrease the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 12%. For children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 90%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 47%.\nIs intelligent child more likely than unintelligent child overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7704, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 72%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 58%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be less likely to see intelligent child if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7707, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 76%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 37%.\nWill intelligent parents increase the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7709, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 14%. For children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 76%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 37%.\nIs intelligent child more likely than unintelligent child overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7711, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to parents' social status.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7712, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 73%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 42%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be more likely to see intelligent child if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7714, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 12%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 64%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 5%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child smaller when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7715, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 49%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 32%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be more likely to see intelligent child if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 14%. For children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 49%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 32%.\nIs intelligent child more likely than unintelligent child overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7721, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7727, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 13%. For children with unintelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 86%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of intelligent child is 46%.\nIs intelligent child less likely than unintelligent child overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7730, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 60%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 65%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 29%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 22%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 72%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 41%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 35%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 12%. The overall probability of confounder active is 52%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would parents' intelligence positively affect child's intelligence?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7733, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 15%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 54%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 4%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child smaller when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7736, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 75%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 50%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 48%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 21%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 96%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 90%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 50%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 50%. The overall probability of confounder active is 49%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would parents' intelligence negatively affect child's intelligence?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7738, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with child's intelligence in general.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7742, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 17%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 40%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 4%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child larger when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7747, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 16%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 42%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 4%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child larger when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7752, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 19%. The probability of unintelligent parents and intelligent child is 42%. The probability of intelligent parents and intelligent child is 5%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child larger when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7760, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 93%. For nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 40%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 74%.\nIs college admission more likely than college rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7771, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 92%. For nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 47%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 45%.\nIs college admission more likely than college rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with college admission case by case according to effort. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with college admission in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects college admission, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7774, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 55%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 24%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 81%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 59%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 2%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 59%.\nDoes smoking positively affect college admission through effort?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7775, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 55%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 24%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 81%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 59%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 2%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 59%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking positively affect college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7785, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 82%. For nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 27%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 17%.\nIs college admission more likely than college rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7787, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 82%. The probability of nonsmoking and college admission is 5%. The probability of smoking and college admission is 14%.\nIs the chance of college admission larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7788, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with college admission in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to effort.\nTo understand how smoking affects college admission, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7795, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 68%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 45%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 84%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 33%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 19%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 58%.\nDoes smoking positively affect college admission through effort?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7804, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 92%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 50%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 80%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 36%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 17%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 74%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking positively affect college admission?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7813, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 93%. The probability of nonsmoking and college admission is 3%. The probability of smoking and college admission is 62%.\nIs the chance of college admission smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7818, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 53%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 29%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see college admission if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7830, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 89%. The probability of nonsmoking and college admission is 3%. The probability of smoking and college admission is 55%.\nIs the chance of college admission smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7836, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 71%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 58%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see college admission if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7839, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 94%. For nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 71%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 58%.\nIs college admission less likely than college rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7846, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with college admission in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to effort.\nTo understand how smoking affects college admission, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7847, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 88%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 67%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7849, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 88%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 67%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see college admission if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7854, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 87%. For nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 88%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 67%.\nIs college admission less likely than college rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7855, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 87%. The probability of nonsmoking and college admission is 11%. The probability of smoking and college admission is 59%.\nIs the chance of college admission larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 64%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 37%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see college admission if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7866, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 69%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 40%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 64%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 26%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 16%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 72%.\nDoes smoking positively affect college admission through effort?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7867, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 69%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 40%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of college admission is 64%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of college admission is 26%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 16%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 72%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect college admission through effort?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 49%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 39%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 91%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 65%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7892, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 98%. The probability of nonsmoking and college admission is 1%. The probability of smoking and college admission is 64%.\nIs the chance of college admission larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7900, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 67%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 55%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see college admission if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 90%. For nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 67%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 55%.\nIs college admission more likely than college rejection overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7906, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with college admission in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to effort.\nTo understand how smoking affects college admission, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7908, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of college admission is 53%. For smokers, the probability of college admission is 39%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of college admission?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7923, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 84%. The probability of nonsmoking and college admission is 7%. The probability of smoking and college admission is 19%.\nIs the chance of college admission larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7924, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with college admission in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to effort.\nTo understand how smoking affects college admission, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7936, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how obesity correlates with lifespan case by case according to diabetes. Method 2: We look directly at how obesity correlates with lifespan in general.\nTo understand how obesity affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7947, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 90%. For normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 81%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 70%.\nIs long lifespan less likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 81%. The probability of normal weight and long lifespan is 11%. The probability of obesity and long lifespan is 62%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan larger when observing obesity?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7955, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 44%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 60%.\nFor obese people, would it be more likely to see long lifespan if the person had been normal weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7956, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 44%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 60%.\nFor obese people, would it be less likely to see long lifespan if the person had been normal weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7957, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 91%. For normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 44%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 60%.\nIs long lifespan more likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 56%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 82%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 56%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 81%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 58%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 72%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 29%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 20%. The overall probability of smoker is 86%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would obesity positively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7964, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 82%. The probability of normal weight and long lifespan is 13%. The probability of obesity and long lifespan is 51%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan smaller when observing obesity?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7967, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 23%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 51%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 52%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 75%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 80%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 58%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 51%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 22%. The overall probability of smoker is 88%.\nDoes obesity negatively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7969, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 98%. The probability of normal weight and long lifespan is 1%. The probability of obesity and long lifespan is 57%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan larger when observing obesity?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 66%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 56%.\nWill obesity increase the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 66%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 56%.\nWill obesity decrease the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 7994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 86%. For normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 87%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 64%.\nIs long lifespan less likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 7996, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 56%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 70%.\nFor obese people, would it be more likely to see long lifespan if the person had been normal weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how obesity correlates with lifespan in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to diabetes.\nTo understand how obesity affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8008, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 73%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 63%.\nWill obesity increase the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8018, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 94%. The probability of normal weight and long lifespan is 3%. The probability of obesity and long lifespan is 64%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan larger when observing obesity?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8028, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 64%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 50%.\nFor obese people, would it be more likely to see long lifespan if the person had been normal weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8042, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 99%. For normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 49%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 60%.\nIs long lifespan less likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8044, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 65%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 56%.\nWill obesity decrease the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8053, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how obesity correlates with lifespan case by case according to diabetes. Method 2: We look directly at how obesity correlates with lifespan in general.\nTo understand how obesity affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8057, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 85%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 64%.\nFor obese people, would it be less likely to see long lifespan if the person had been normal weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8060, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 91%. For normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 85%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 64%.\nIs long lifespan less likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8061, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of obesity is 91%. The probability of normal weight and long lifespan is 7%. The probability of obesity and long lifespan is 58%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan smaller when observing obesity?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8069, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 35%. For normal weight people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 62%. For obese people and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 61%. For obese people and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 84%. For normal weight people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 87%. For normal weight people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 89%. For obese people and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 53%. For obese people and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 59%. The overall probability of smoker is 95%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would obesity positively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8076, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 63%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 53%.\nFor obese people, would it be less likely to see long lifespan if the person had been normal weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8082, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how obesity correlates with lifespan in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to diabetes.\nTo understand how obesity affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8089, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how obesity correlates with lifespan case by case according to diabetes. Method 2: We look directly at how obesity correlates with lifespan in general.\nTo understand how obesity affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8091, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor normal weight people, the probability of long lifespan is 53%. For obese people, the probability of long lifespan is 74%.\nWill obesity decrease the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8101, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 19%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 46%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 57%.\nIs scurvy less likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8103, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8105, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 73%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 54%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect scurvy through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8112, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 17%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 47%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 57%.\nIs scurvy less likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 56%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 39%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect scurvy through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8122, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 58%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 32%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of scurvy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8124, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 9%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 58%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 32%.\nIs scurvy less likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8127, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 46%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 61%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see scurvy if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8128, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 46%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 61%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect scurvy through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8135, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8148, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 38%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 13%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see scurvy if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 12%. The probability of absence of citrus and scurvy is 34%. The probability of citrus intake and scurvy is 2%.\nIs the chance of scurvy larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8153, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 17%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 30%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see scurvy if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8157, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 33%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 17%.\nWill citrus intake decrease the chance of scurvy?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8160, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 64%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 72%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of scurvy?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8161, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 75%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 42%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of scurvy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 75%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 42%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be less likely to see scurvy if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8165, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 2%. The probability of absence of citrus and scurvy is 73%. The probability of citrus intake and scurvy is 1%.\nIs the chance of scurvy larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8168, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 3%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 60%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 74%.\nIs scurvy more likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8171, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 19%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 65%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 34%.\nIs scurvy more likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8172, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 19%. The probability of absence of citrus and scurvy is 53%. The probability of citrus intake and scurvy is 6%.\nIs the chance of scurvy smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8173, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8174, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8181, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 49%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 38%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be less likely to see scurvy if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8189, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 13%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 61%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 45%.\nIs scurvy more likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8192, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 76%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 60%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect scurvy through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8194, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 20%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 76%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 60%.\nIs scurvy less likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8196, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8199, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 55%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 41%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect scurvy through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8204, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 6%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 54%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 36%.\nIs scurvy less likely than no scurvy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8206, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 74%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 63%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be less likely to see scurvy if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8212, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 68%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of scurvy is 56%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be less likely to see scurvy if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8215, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with scurvy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects scurvy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8224, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 82%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of increased price is 38%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of increased price is 74%.\nIs increased price less likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8226, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how supply correlates with price case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8228, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8229, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 59%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 59%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 82%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 83%.\nWill increased supply increase the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8232, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 66%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of increased price is 65%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of increased price is 94%.\nIs increased price less likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 36%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 37%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 62%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 67%.\nWill increased supply increase the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8239, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 61%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 52%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 68%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 30%.\nWill increased supply increase the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8240, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 66%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 14%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 47%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8245, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 59%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 15%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 43%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8248, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 75%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 20%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 45%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8255, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8256, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 78%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 65%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 74%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 26%.\nWill increased supply decrease the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8257, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 68%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 19%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 57%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8260, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 32%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 30%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 18%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8269, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 66%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of increased price is 84%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of increased price is 60%.\nIs increased price more likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8271, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 66%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 29%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 40%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8272, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8274, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 78%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of increased price is 44%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of increased price is 81%.\nIs increased price less likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 66%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 54%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 63%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 25%.\nWill increased supply decrease the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8279, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 57%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 20%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 43%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how supply correlates with price case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8285, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 66%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 58%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 69%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 42%.\nWill increased supply decrease the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8288, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 62%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 54%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 77%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 41%.\nWill increased supply decrease the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8289, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 76%. The probability of reduced supply and increased price is 11%. The probability of increased supply and increased price is 51%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8293, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how supply correlates with price case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8295, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 71%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of increased price is 25%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of increased price is 61%.\nIs increased price more likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8296, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 71%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of increased price is 25%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of increased price is 61%.\nIs increased price less likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8303, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how supply correlates with price case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how supply correlates with price in general.\nTo understand how supply affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8304, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 30%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 36%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 13%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 48%.\nWill increased supply decrease the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8314, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 92%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 61%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 36%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 6%. The overall probability of male gender is 55%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 92%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 61%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 36%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 6%. The overall probability of male gender is 55%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8316, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 40%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 43%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 59%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8322, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with recovery case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8323, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 96%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 64%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 38%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 8%. The overall probability of male gender is 49%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8324, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with recovery case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8326, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 55%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 14%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 41%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8329, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 94%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 61%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 34%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 0%. The overall probability of male gender is 48%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8330, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 51%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 38%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 59%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8331, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 51%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 18%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 30%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8342, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8343, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 47%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 37%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 52%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 86%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 74%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 28%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 13%. The overall probability of male gender is 50%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8355, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 99%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 77%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 26%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 9%. The overall probability of male gender is 47%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8357, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 99%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 77%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 26%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 9%. The overall probability of male gender is 47%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 55%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 30%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 72%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8359, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 55%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 14%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 39%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8360, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8362, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 97%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 67%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 41%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 9%. The overall probability of male gender is 58%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8365, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 91%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 81%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 30%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 15%. The overall probability of male gender is 44%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8368, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with recovery case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 98%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 67%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 41%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 10%. The overall probability of male gender is 43%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8371, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8374, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 56%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 18%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 64%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 52%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 46%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 64%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8385, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 57%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 38%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 84%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8399, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with recovery case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8402, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 45%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 15%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 31%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8403, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 45%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 15%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 31%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 84%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 71%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 21%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 3%. The overall probability of male gender is 54%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8409, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 98%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 64%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 36%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 2%. The overall probability of male gender is 48%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8414, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 78%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 62%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 13%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 2%. The overall probability of male gender is 57%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8416, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 44%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 9%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 25%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8424, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 97%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 75%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 24%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 2%. The overall probability of old age is 57%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8431, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 51%. The probability of low hospital bill and recovery is 16%. The probability of high hospital bill and recovery is 36%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8433, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 91%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 77%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 31%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 20%. The overall probability of old age is 50%.\nWill high hospital bill increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8434, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 91%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 77%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 31%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 20%. The overall probability of old age is 50%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8435, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 91%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 77%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 31%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 20%. The overall probability of old age is 50%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8436, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 53%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 34%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 72%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8439, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with recovery case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8446, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 55%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 25%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 59%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 47%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 24%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 67%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8452, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 47%. The probability of low hospital bill and recovery is 13%. The probability of high hospital bill and recovery is 32%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 96%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 75%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 25%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 5%. The overall probability of old age is 52%.\nWill high hospital bill increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8461, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with recovery case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 63%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 27%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 58%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 63%. The probability of low hospital bill and recovery is 10%. The probability of high hospital bill and recovery is 36%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8468, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 49%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 39%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 63%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8478, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 60%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 39%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 62%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8480, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with recovery case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8482, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 86%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 75%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 27%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 11%. The overall probability of old age is 54%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8487, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 84%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 74%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 22%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 6%. The overall probability of old age is 42%.\nWill high hospital bill decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8488, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 58%. The probability of low hospital bill and recovery is 11%. The probability of high hospital bill and recovery is 41%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8489, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 96%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 74%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 24%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 2%. The overall probability of old age is 40%.\nWill high hospital bill decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8491, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 59%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 32%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 69%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8493, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 91%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 75%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 29%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 16%. The overall probability of old age is 41%.\nWill high hospital bill decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8499, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 96%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 74%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 23%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 2%. The overall probability of old age is 46%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8504, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 99%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 87%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 30%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 19%. The overall probability of old age is 47%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8506, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 100%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 79%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 27%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 7%. The overall probability of old age is 47%.\nWill high hospital bill decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8509, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 91%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 76%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 28%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 12%. The overall probability of old age is 57%.\nWill high hospital bill decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8513, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8514, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with recovery case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8532, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 95%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 73%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 22%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 0%. The overall probability of old age is 52%.\nWill high hospital bill increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8533, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 95%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 73%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 22%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of recovery is 0%. The overall probability of old age is 52%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8541, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 55%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 18%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 47%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 94%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 81%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 18%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 7%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 57%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8546, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8547, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with recovery case by case according to kidney stone size. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8549, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 44%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 11%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 30%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8550, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 96%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 83%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 21%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 11%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 42%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8551, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 33%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 50%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 81%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8554, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8556, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 94%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 80%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 18%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 5%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 58%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8565, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 90%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 79%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 13%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 0%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 40%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8566, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 49%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 20%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 33%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8569, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 51%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 24%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 71%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8572, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 95%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 81%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 17%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 6%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 54%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8576, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 50%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 16%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 40%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8579, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 95%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 83%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 20%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 9%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 41%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8586, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with recovery case by case according to kidney stone size. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8592, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 38%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 26%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 75%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8594, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 39%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 19%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 27%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8601, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 51%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 32%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 74%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8602, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 51%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 16%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 38%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8604, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 99%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 88%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 23%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 9%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 59%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8605, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 99%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 88%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 23%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 9%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 59%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8609, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 86%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 80%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 24%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 12%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 54%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8613, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 48%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 25%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 75%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8614, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 48%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 13%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 36%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8616, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 92%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 77%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 12%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 1%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 54%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 92%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 77%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 12%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 1%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 54%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8620, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 52%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 11%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 36%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8621, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 52%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 11%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 36%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8625, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 52%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 21%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 38%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8626, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with recovery case by case according to kidney stone size. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 92%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 81%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 17%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 5%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 49%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8629, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 92%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 81%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 17%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 5%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 49%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8630, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 63%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 25%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 62%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8631, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 63%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 25%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 62%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 63%. The probability of receives no treatment and recovery is 9%. The probability of receives treatment and recovery is 39%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8633, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 88%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 72%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 16%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 4%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 41%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 99%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 88%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 32%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of recovery is 18%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 59%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8648, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 91%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 81%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 20%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 10%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 43%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8655, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with disease case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with disease in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8662, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 85%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 75%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 15%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 8%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 45%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8665, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 53%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 38%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 62%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8667, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 87%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 73%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 23%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 12%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 48%.\nWill getting the vaccine increase the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8673, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 93%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 81%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 24%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 13%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 46%.\nWill getting the vaccine decrease the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8683, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 46%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 38%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 73%.\nIs recovering from the disease less likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 72%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 63%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 8%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 2%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 58%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be less likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8686, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 96%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 76%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 25%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 4%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 54%.\nWill getting the vaccine increase the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 53%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 29%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 62%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 92%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 79%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 27%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 14%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 58%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be less likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8694, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 57%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 14%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 36%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease smaller when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 52%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 24%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 65%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8698, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 91%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 84%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 27%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 19%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 53%.\nWill getting the vaccine decrease the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 48%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 17%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 36%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease smaller when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8701, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 44%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 48%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 69%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8702, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 44%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 27%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 31%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease larger when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8706, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 43%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 29%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 73%.\nIs recovering from the disease less likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8708, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 46%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 15%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 31%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease larger when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8712, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 37%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 20%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 26%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease smaller when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8714, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 87%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 73%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 22%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 4%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 45%.\nWill getting the vaccine decrease the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 94%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 74%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 24%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 3%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 42%.\nWill getting the vaccine increase the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8718, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 94%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 74%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 24%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 3%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 42%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be less likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 49%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 20%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 34%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease larger when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8725, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 91%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 84%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 21%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 16%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 44%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8727, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 62%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 8%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 48%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease larger when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8729, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 97%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 77%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 25%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 4%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 55%.\nWill getting the vaccine increase the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8732, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 44%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 31%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 69%.\nIs recovering from the disease less likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8745, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with disease case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with disease in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8747, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 95%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 80%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 30%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 19%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 58%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see recovering from the disease if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8749, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 39%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 33%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of recovering from the disease is 80%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8750, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 39%. The probability of vaccine refusal and recovering from the disease is 20%. The probability of getting the vaccine and recovering from the disease is 31%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease larger when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8752, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 60%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 86%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 36%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 61%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 43%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 14%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 71%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 49%. The overall probability of good health is 15%.\nDoes maternal smoking status negatively affect infant mortality through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8755, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 94%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and high infant mortality is 4%. The probability of smoking mother and high infant mortality is 49%.\nIs the chance of high infant mortality larger when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8756, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 61%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 32%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8760, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 48%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 72%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 16%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 37%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 52%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 26%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 78%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 57%. The overall probability of good health is 1%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status negatively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8765, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 83%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 65%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8766, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 69%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 94%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 33%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 68%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 63%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 36%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 95%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 63%. The overall probability of good health is 16%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status positively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8769, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 56%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 31%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8771, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality case by case according to infant's birth weight. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 74%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 18%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 49%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 45%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 22%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 72%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 50%. The overall probability of good health is 14%.\nDoes maternal smoking status negatively affect infant mortality through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8777, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 68%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 41%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8778, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 68%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 41%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8783, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality case by case according to infant's birth weight. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8788, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality case by case according to infant's birth weight. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8789, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to infant's birth weight.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8790, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 65%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 37%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8791, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 65%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 37%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be less likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8805, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 57%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 79%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 30%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 54%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 50%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 28%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 73%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 49%. The overall probability of good health is 1%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status negatively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8810, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 54%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 31%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8823, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to infant's birth weight.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8824, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 59%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 26%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8825, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 59%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 26%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8829, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 67%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 97%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 39%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 71%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 51%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 17%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 72%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 46%. The overall probability of good health is 19%.\nDoes maternal smoking status negatively affect infant mortality through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8839, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 81%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 85%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 65%.\nIs high infant mortality less likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8847, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 87%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and high infant mortality is 8%. The probability of smoking mother and high infant mortality is 37%.\nIs the chance of high infant mortality smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8858, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 94%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 52%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 32%.\nIs high infant mortality more likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 85%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 76%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 56%.\nIs high infant mortality more likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8867, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to infant's birth weight.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8873, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 79%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 52%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8876, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant mortality in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to infant's birth weight.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8884, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 70%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 54%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8885, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 63%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 87%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 39%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 63%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 32%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 1%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 64%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 22%. The overall probability of good health is 3%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status negatively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8889, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 81%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and high infant mortality is 13%. The probability of smoking mother and high infant mortality is 44%.\nIs the chance of high infant mortality smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8892, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 68%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 53%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8902, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 79%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be less likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8906, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 94%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and high infant mortality is 5%. The probability of smoking mother and high infant mortality is 43%.\nIs the chance of high infant mortality smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8913, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 59%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of high infant mortality is 39%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see high infant mortality if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8915, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 71%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 18%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 59%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 19%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 83%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 44%. The overall probability of good health is 18%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status negatively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8917, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 80%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 54%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 79%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 40%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8918, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 40%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 80%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 54%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 79%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. The overall probability of smoking is 36%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8919, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 36%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 74%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8920, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 36%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 44%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 27%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8922, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8923, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 1%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 65%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 34%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 65%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 34%. The overall probability of smoking is 95%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8932, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8933, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 86%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 51%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. The overall probability of smoking is 82%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 86%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 51%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. The overall probability of smoking is 82%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8935, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 86%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 51%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8937, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8942, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 55%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 74%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 85%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8943, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 55%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 33%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 47%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8945, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8948, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 97%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 1%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 57%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8951, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 77%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 26%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 71%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 45%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 63%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 37%. The overall probability of smoking is 39%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 77%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 26%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 71%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 45%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 63%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 37%. The overall probability of smoking is 39%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8953, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 71%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 45%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 63%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 37%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 77%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 26%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8954, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 77%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 26%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 71%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 45%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 63%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 37%. The overall probability of smoking is 39%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8955, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 39%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 57%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 69%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 3%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 72%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 19%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 69%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 18%. The overall probability of smoking is 70%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8962, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8963, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 61%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 33%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 38%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 60%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 26%. The overall probability of smoking is 10%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8964, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 38%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 60%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 26%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 61%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 33%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8965, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 10%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 49%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 10%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 48%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 5%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8968, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 73%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 23%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 21%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 68%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 18%. The overall probability of smoking is 64%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8969, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 64%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 12%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 36%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8970, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 56%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 32%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. The overall probability of smoking is 37%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8972, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 56%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 32%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. The overall probability of smoking is 37%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8973, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 37%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 57%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 56%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 37%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 36%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 21%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8976, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 78%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 28%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 34%. The overall probability of smoking is 63%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8977, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 78%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 28%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 34%. The overall probability of smoking is 63%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 96%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 68%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8979, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 96%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 2%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 65%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 57%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 1%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 97%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 92%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 54%. The overall probability of smoking is 45%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 57%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 1%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 97%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 92%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 54%. The overall probability of smoking is 45%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8982, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 45%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 75%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 92%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8983, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 45%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 42%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 41%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8984, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 8%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 84%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 82%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. The overall probability of smoking is 57%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8986, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 57%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 78%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8987, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 57%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 22%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 45%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8989, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8991, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 63%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 26%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 14%. The overall probability of smoking is 21%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8992, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 69%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 12%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 57%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 56%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 29%. The overall probability of smoking is 86%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8995, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 86%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 37%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 53%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8997, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 31%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 29%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 8998, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 31%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 29%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 8999, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 31%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 29%. The overall probability of smoking is 41%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9001, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 36%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 2%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 80%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 78%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. The overall probability of smoking is 63%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 63%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 77%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9004, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 24%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 90%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 64%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 84%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 59%. The overall probability of smoking is 45%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9005, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 45%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 72%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 78%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9006, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 45%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 39%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 35%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 62%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 97%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 45%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9008, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 62%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 97%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 45%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9012, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9013, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9014, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 29%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 79%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 73%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 41%. The overall probability of smoking is 37%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9015, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 79%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 73%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 41%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 29%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9016, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 29%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 79%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 73%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 41%. The overall probability of smoking is 37%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9017, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 85%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 11%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 75%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 74%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 36%. The overall probability of smoking is 53%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9018, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 75%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 74%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 36%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 85%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 11%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9020, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 53%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 41%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 69%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9021, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 53%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 19%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 37%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9022, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 53%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 19%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 37%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9023, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 79%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 40%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 79%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 71%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. The overall probability of smoking is 45%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9025, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 79%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 71%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 79%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 40%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9030, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 82%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 56%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 79%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 32%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9031, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 32%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 82%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 56%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 79%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. The overall probability of smoking is 37%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9032, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 37%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 65%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 71%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 37%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 41%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 26%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9034, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 80%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 3%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 57%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 18%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 59%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 22%. The overall probability of smoking is 75%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9035, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 57%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 18%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 59%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 22%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 80%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 3%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9037, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 75%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 26%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 58%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9038, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 75%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 6%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 44%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9039, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 75%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 6%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 44%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9043, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 56%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 19%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 33%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9045, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 74%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 29%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 85%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 59%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 84%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. The overall probability of smoking is 63%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9047, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 85%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 59%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 84%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 74%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 29%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9048, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 85%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 59%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 84%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 74%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 29%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9049, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 63%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 66%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 77%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9075, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 61%.\nFor people with smoking genes, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had a nonsmoking gene?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9076, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 31%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 69%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 62%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 34%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 31%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 9%. The overall probability of high pollution is 44%.\nDoes gene positively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9077, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 31%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 69%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 62%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 34%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 31%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 9%. The overall probability of high pollution is 44%.\nDoes gene negatively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9081, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 56%.\nWill smoking gene decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 87%. The probability of nonsmoking gene and lung cancer is 9%. The probability of smoking gene and lung cancer is 49%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking gene?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9086, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 68%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 71%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 73%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 42%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 49%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 17%. The overall probability of high pollution is 53%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would gene positively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9092, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 31%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 82%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 51%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 56%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 31%. The overall probability of high pollution is 19%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would gene positively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9093, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 81%. For people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 60%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 42%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9098, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 52%.\nWill smoking gene decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 52%.\nFor people with smoking genes, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had a nonsmoking gene?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9104, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 75%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 57%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 82%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 59%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 84%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 52%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 59%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 28%. The overall probability of high pollution is 41%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would gene positively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9105, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 98%. The probability of nonsmoking gene and lung cancer is 1%. The probability of smoking gene and lung cancer is 70%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking gene?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9110, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 75%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 49%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 23%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 75%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 46%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 39%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 17%. The overall probability of high pollution is 6%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would gene negatively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9116, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 94%. For people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 56%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 64%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 41%.\nFor people with smoking genes, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had a nonsmoking gene?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9118, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 75%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 56%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 54%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 30%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 93%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 68%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 57%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 27%. The overall probability of high pollution is 10%.\nDoes gene positively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9122, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gene correlates with lung cancer case by case according to smoking. Method 2: We look directly at how gene correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how gene affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 60%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 34%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 97%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 67%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 53%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 24%. The overall probability of high pollution is 16%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would gene negatively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9155, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 56%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 60%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 76%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 48%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 46%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 21%. The overall probability of high pollution is 41%.\nDoes gene positively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9156, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 89%. For people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 47%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 53%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9160, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 68%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 46%.\nWill smoking gene increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9163, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 68%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 46%.\nFor people with smoking genes, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had a nonsmoking gene?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 97%. For people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 68%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 46%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9178, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 65%.\nFor people with smoking genes, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had a nonsmoking gene?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9185, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 79%. For people with nonsmoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 64%. For people with smoking genes and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 62%. For people with smoking genes and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 38%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 92%. For people with nonsmoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 64%. For people with smoking genes and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 55%. For people with smoking genes and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 29%. The overall probability of high pollution is 11%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would gene negatively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9186, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking gene is 89%. For people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 65%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 49%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9189, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 53%.\nWill smoking gene increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9190, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people with nonsmoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. For people with smoking genes, the probability of lung cancer is 53%.\nWill smoking gene decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9202, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 46%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9203, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 46%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9205, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 24%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 48%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9209, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 62%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 52%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9211, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 85%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 62%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 52%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9214, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9215, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 64%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 80%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 16%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 54%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 13%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9219, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 16%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 54%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 13%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9220, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 34%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 44%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9225, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 84%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 5%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9234, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tar deposit.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9235, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 57%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 57%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9237, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 57%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9240, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 99%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 0%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 56%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9244, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 29%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 64%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9245, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 29%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 64%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9251, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 87%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 75%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 43%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9254, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 54%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9258, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 73%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9261, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 82%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 73%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9262, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 82%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 6%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 60%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 14%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9266, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 14%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9272, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 64%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 89%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9274, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 64%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 89%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9276, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 15%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 55%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 13%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9278, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tar deposit.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9280, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 69%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 54%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9281, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 82%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 69%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 54%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9286, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 13%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 62%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 13%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9290, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 95%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 3%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 20%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9293, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 65%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9301, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 56%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 29%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9303, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 88%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 56%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 29%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9305, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tar deposit.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9308, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9309, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9311, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9312, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 17%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 49%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9313, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 81%. For nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 17%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 49%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 80%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 10%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 27%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9328, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 60%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 74%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9330, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 73%. For smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9333, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 95%. The probability of nonsmoking and lung cancer is 4%. The probability of smoking and lung cancer is 48%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9336, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 49%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 54%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 27%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 50%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9340, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 63%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 17%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 47%.\nIs normal infant birth weight less likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9342, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 63%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 6%. The probability of smoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 30%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9343, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 22%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 31%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 39%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 75%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9344, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 40%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 6%. The probability of smoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 17%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight larger when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9345, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9350, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 28%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 40%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 67%.\nIs normal infant birth weight more likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9354, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 15%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 7%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 47%.\nIs normal infant birth weight more likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9366, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 31%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 5%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 38%.\nIs normal infant birth weight less likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9374, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 14%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 17%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 45%.\nIs normal infant birth weight more likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9375, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 14%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 14%. The probability of smoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 6%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9378, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 17%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 31%. The probability of smoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 14%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight larger when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9379, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 17%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 31%. The probability of smoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 14%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9382, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9383, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 49%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 74%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 37%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 80%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9388, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 39%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 53%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 39%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 77%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9392, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9397, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 42%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 51%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 31%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 59%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9401, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 30%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 28%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 58%.\nIs normal infant birth weight more likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9402, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 30%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 28%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 58%.\nIs normal infant birth weight less likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9404, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 32%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 50%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 46%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 76%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 39%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 24%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 54%.\nIs normal infant birth weight less likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9408, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 39%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 14%. The probability of smoking mother and normal infant birth weight is 21%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9410, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 23%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 46%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 32%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 67%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9416, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with infant's birth weight in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9420, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 34%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 12%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 52%.\nIs normal infant birth weight more likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9422, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 38%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 44%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 28%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 51%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 31%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 30%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 58%.\nIs normal infant birth weight less likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 22%. For people with only polluted water, the probability of cholera contraction is 57%. For people with access to clean water, the probability of cholera contraction is 79%.\nIs cholera contraction less likely than cholera prevention overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9438, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 21%. The probability of polluted water and cholera contraction is 39%. The probability of clean water and cholera contraction is 15%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction larger when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 24%. The probability of polluted water and cholera contraction is 50%. The probability of clean water and cholera contraction is 21%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction larger when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9447, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how water quality correlates with cholera case by case according to poverty. Method 2: We look directly at how water quality correlates with cholera in general.\nTo understand how water quality affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9449, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 40%. The probability of polluted water and cholera contraction is 37%. The probability of clean water and cholera contraction is 34%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction larger when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9456, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how water quality correlates with cholera case by case according to poverty. Method 2: We look directly at how water quality correlates with cholera in general.\nTo understand how water quality affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9457, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 52%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 44%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of clean water is 54%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of clean water is 26%.\nWill clean water increase the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9458, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 52%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 44%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of clean water is 54%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of clean water is 26%.\nWill clean water decrease the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9466, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how water quality correlates with cholera case by case according to poverty. Method 2: We look directly at how water quality correlates with cholera in general.\nTo understand how water quality affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9467, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 47%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 41%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of clean water is 50%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of clean water is 18%.\nWill clean water decrease the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9468, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 19%. The probability of polluted water and cholera contraction is 30%. The probability of clean water and cholera contraction is 11%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction larger when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9472, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how water quality correlates with cholera in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to poverty.\nTo understand how water quality affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9473, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how water quality correlates with cholera case by case according to poverty. Method 2: We look directly at how water quality correlates with cholera in general.\nTo understand how water quality affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9477, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 27%. The probability of polluted water and cholera contraction is 45%. The probability of clean water and cholera contraction is 23%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction smaller when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9478, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how water quality correlates with cholera in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to poverty.\nTo understand how water quality affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9485, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 26%. For people with only polluted water, the probability of cholera contraction is 61%. For people with access to clean water, the probability of cholera contraction is 89%.\nIs cholera contraction more likely than cholera prevention overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9492, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 76%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 62%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of clean water is 46%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of clean water is 11%.\nWill clean water decrease the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9493, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 13%. For people with only polluted water, the probability of cholera contraction is 58%. For people with access to clean water, the probability of cholera contraction is 95%.\nIs cholera contraction more likely than cholera prevention overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9497, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how water quality correlates with cholera case by case according to poverty. Method 2: We look directly at how water quality correlates with cholera in general.\nTo understand how water quality affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9500, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 22%. The probability of polluted water and cholera contraction is 53%. The probability of clean water and cholera contraction is 20%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction smaller when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9501, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how water quality correlates with cholera in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to poverty.\nTo understand how water quality affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9506, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 23%. The probability of polluted water and cholera contraction is 40%. The probability of clean water and cholera contraction is 18%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction smaller when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 54%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 41%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of clean water is 56%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of clean water is 26%.\nWill clean water increase the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9512, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how water quality correlates with cholera in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to poverty.\nTo understand how water quality affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9518, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 64%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 47%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of clean water is 70%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of clean water is 28%.\nWill clean water increase the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9523, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that alarm set by husband causes alarm not set by wife. alarm set by husband or alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm doesn't ring the next morning if alarm not set by husband instead of alarm set by husband?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that alarm set by husband causes alarm not set by wife. alarm set by husband or alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm rings the next morning if alarm set by husband instead of alarm not set by husband?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9525, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that alarm set by husband causes alarm not set by wife. alarm set by husband or alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm doesn't ring the next morning if alarm set by husband instead of alarm not set by husband?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9526, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that alarm set by husband causes alarm not set by wife. alarm set by husband and alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm rings the next morning if alarm not set by husband instead of alarm set by husband?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that alarm set by husband causes alarm set by wife. alarm set by husband or alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm rings the next morning if alarm not set by husband instead of alarm set by husband?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9532, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that alarm set by husband causes alarm set by wife. alarm set by husband or alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm rings the next morning if alarm set by husband instead of alarm not set by husband?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9536, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Husband has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that alarm set by husband causes alarm set by wife. alarm set by husband and alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm rings the next morning if alarm set by husband instead of alarm not set by husband?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9538, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that blowing out the candle or candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle is out of wax.\nWould the room is dark if not blowing out the candle instead of blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9539, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that blowing out the candle or candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle is out of wax.\nWould the room is bright if not blowing out the candle instead of blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that blowing out the candle or candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle has wax.\nWould the room is dark if not blowing out the candle instead of blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9543, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that blowing out the candle or candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle has wax.\nWould the room is bright if not blowing out the candle instead of blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9547, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that blowing out the candle and candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle is out of wax.\nWould the room is bright if not blowing out the candle instead of blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9548, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that blowing out the candle and candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle is out of wax.\nWould the room is dark if blowing out the candle instead of not blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9549, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that blowing out the candle and candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle is out of wax.\nWould the room is bright if blowing out the candle instead of not blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9553, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The man in the room has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that blowing out the candle and candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle has wax.\nWould the room is bright if blowing out the candle instead of not blowing out the candle?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9554, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if manager not signing the termination letter instead of manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9555, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if manager not signing the termination letter instead of manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9556, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if manager signing the termination letter instead of manager not signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9557, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if manager signing the termination letter instead of manager not signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9558, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if manager not signing the termination letter instead of manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9560, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if manager signing the termination letter instead of manager not signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9562, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if manager not signing the termination letter instead of manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if manager not signing the termination letter instead of manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9564, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if manager signing the termination letter instead of manager not signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9565, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if manager signing the termination letter instead of manager not signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9567, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if manager not signing the termination letter instead of manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9570, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager not signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if manager not signing the termination letter instead of manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9571, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager not signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if manager not signing the termination letter instead of manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9572, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager not signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if manager signing the termination letter instead of manager not signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9573, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager not signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if manager signing the termination letter instead of manager not signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9574, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager not signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if manager not signing the termination letter instead of manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9575, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager not signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if manager not signing the termination letter instead of manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9577, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager not signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if manager signing the termination letter instead of manager not signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9579, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager not signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if manager not signing the termination letter instead of manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9580, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager not signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if manager signing the termination letter instead of manager not signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9582, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager not signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if manager not signing the termination letter instead of manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager not signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if manager signing the termination letter instead of manager not signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes manager not signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter. manager signing the termination letter and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if manager signing the termination letter instead of manager not signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9586, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that the captain's order to execute the prisoner causes the corporal shooting and the private not shooting. the corporal shooting or the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if the captain's order to release the prisoner instead of the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9587, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that the captain's order to execute the prisoner causes the corporal shooting and the private not shooting. the corporal shooting or the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is alive if the captain's order to release the prisoner instead of the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9588, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that the captain's order to execute the prisoner causes the corporal shooting and the private not shooting. the corporal shooting or the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if the captain's order to execute the prisoner instead of the captain's order to release the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9589, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that the captain's order to execute the prisoner causes the corporal shooting and the private not shooting. the corporal shooting or the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is alive if the captain's order to execute the prisoner instead of the captain's order to release the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9590, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that the captain's order to execute the prisoner causes the corporal shooting and the private shooting. the corporal shooting or the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if the captain's order to release the prisoner instead of the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9591, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that the captain's order to execute the prisoner causes the corporal shooting and the private shooting. the corporal shooting or the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is alive if the captain's order to release the prisoner instead of the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that the captain's order to execute the prisoner causes the corporal shooting and the private shooting. the corporal shooting or the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is alive if the captain's order to execute the prisoner instead of the captain's order to release the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9594, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that the captain's order to execute the prisoner causes the corporal shooting and the private shooting. the corporal shooting and the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if the captain's order to release the prisoner instead of the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that the captain's order to execute the prisoner causes the corporal shooting and the private shooting. the corporal shooting and the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if the captain's order to execute the prisoner instead of the captain's order to release the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that the captain's order to execute the prisoner causes the corporal shooting and the private shooting. the corporal shooting and the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is alive if the captain's order to execute the prisoner instead of the captain's order to release the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9598, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that the captain's order to execute the prisoner causes the corporal shooting and the private not shooting. the corporal shooting and the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if the captain's order to release the prisoner instead of the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9599, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that the captain's order to execute the prisoner causes the corporal shooting and the private not shooting. the corporal shooting and the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is alive if the captain's order to release the prisoner instead of the captain's order to execute the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9600, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The captain has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that the captain's order to execute the prisoner causes the corporal shooting and the private not shooting. the corporal shooting and the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if the captain's order to execute the prisoner instead of the captain's order to release the prisoner?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9605, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that rainy season causes rain and sprinkler on. rain and sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is dry if rainy season instead of dry season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9606, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that rainy season causes rain and sprinkler off. rain and sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is wet if dry season instead of rainy season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that rainy season causes rain and sprinkler off. rain and sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is dry if dry season instead of rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that rainy season causes rain and sprinkler on. rain or sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is wet if dry season instead of rainy season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that rainy season causes rain and sprinkler on. rain or sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is dry if dry season instead of rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9613, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that rainy season causes rain and sprinkler on. rain or sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is dry if rainy season instead of dry season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9615, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that rainy season causes rain and sprinkler off. rain or sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is dry if dry season instead of rainy season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9616, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that rainy season causes rain and sprinkler off. rain or sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is wet if rainy season instead of dry season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that rainy season causes rain and sprinkler off. rain or sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is dry if rainy season instead of dry season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9619, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that the camper lighting a match and the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker doesn't light a match.\nWould the forest doesn't burn down if the camper not lighting a match instead of the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9620, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that the camper lighting a match and the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker doesn't light a match.\nWould the forest burns down if the camper lighting a match instead of the camper not lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9621, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that the camper lighting a match and the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker doesn't light a match.\nWould the forest doesn't burn down if the camper lighting a match instead of the camper not lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9622, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that the camper lighting a match and the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker lights a match.\nWould the forest burns down if the camper not lighting a match instead of the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9623, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that the camper lighting a match and the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker lights a match.\nWould the forest doesn't burn down if the camper not lighting a match instead of the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9626, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that the camper lighting a match or the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker doesn't light a match.\nWould the forest burns down if the camper not lighting a match instead of the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9627, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that the camper lighting a match or the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker doesn't light a match.\nWould the forest doesn't burn down if the camper not lighting a match instead of the camper lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that the camper lighting a match or the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker doesn't light a match.\nWould the forest burns down if the camper lighting a match instead of the camper not lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9629, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that the camper lighting a match or the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker doesn't light a match.\nWould the forest doesn't burn down if the camper lighting a match instead of the camper not lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9633, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: The camper has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that the camper lighting a match or the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker lights a match.\nWould the forest doesn't burn down if the camper lighting a match instead of the camper not lighting a match?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that waking up late or heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is no traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school on time if waking up late instead of waking up on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9637, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that waking up late or heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is no traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school late if waking up late instead of waking up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9638, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that waking up late or heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is heavy traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school on time if waking up on time instead of waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9639, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that waking up late or heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is heavy traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school late if waking up on time instead of waking up late?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9641, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that waking up late or heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is heavy traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school late if waking up late instead of waking up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that waking up late and heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is no traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school on time if waking up on time instead of waking up late?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9644, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that waking up late and heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is no traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school on time if waking up late instead of waking up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9645, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that waking up late and heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is no traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school late if waking up late instead of waking up on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9648, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that waking up late and heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is heavy traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school on time if waking up late instead of waking up on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9649, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that waking up late and heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is heavy traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school late if waking up late instead of waking up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9653, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nWe know that tanning salon treatment or going to the beach causes tanned skin. We observed the person does not go to the beach.\nWould the person has pale skin if tanning salon treatment instead of no tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9654, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nWe know that tanning salon treatment or going to the beach causes tanned skin. We observed the person goes to the beach.\nWould the person has tanned skin if no tanning salon treatment instead of tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9656, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nWe know that tanning salon treatment or going to the beach causes tanned skin. We observed the person goes to the beach.\nWould the person has tanned skin if tanning salon treatment instead of no tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9657, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nWe know that tanning salon treatment or going to the beach causes tanned skin. We observed the person goes to the beach.\nWould the person has pale skin if tanning salon treatment instead of no tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9664, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on skin. Going to the beach has a direct effect on skin.\nWe know that tanning salon treatment and going to the beach causes tanned skin. We observed the person goes to the beach.\nWould the person has tanned skin if tanning salon treatment instead of no tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9666, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin happiness. taking the elevator or penguin happiness causes penguin death.\nWould the penguin dies if taking the stairs instead of taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9668, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin happiness. taking the elevator or penguin happiness causes penguin death.\nWould the penguin dies if taking the elevator instead of taking the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9669, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin happiness. taking the elevator or penguin happiness causes penguin death.\nWould the penguin lives if taking the elevator instead of taking the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9672, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin saddness. taking the elevator or penguin happiness causes penguin death.\nWould the penguin dies if taking the elevator instead of taking the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9673, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin saddness. taking the elevator or penguin happiness causes penguin death.\nWould the penguin lives if taking the elevator instead of taking the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9677, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin saddness. taking the elevator and penguin happiness causes penguin death.\nWould the penguin lives if taking the elevator instead of taking the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9679, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and penguin survival. Penguin mood has a direct effect on penguin survival.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin happiness. taking the elevator and penguin happiness causes penguin death.\nWould the penguin lives if taking the stairs instead of taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9682, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that vaccination causes having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction. having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person survives smallpox if lack of vaccination instead of vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9683, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that vaccination causes having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction. having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person dies from smallpox if lack of vaccination instead of vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9685, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that vaccination causes having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction. having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person dies from smallpox if vaccination instead of lack of vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9686, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that vaccination causes having smallpox and no vaccine reaction. having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person survives smallpox if lack of vaccination instead of vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that vaccination causes having smallpox and no vaccine reaction. having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person dies from smallpox if lack of vaccination instead of vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9689, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that vaccination causes having smallpox and no vaccine reaction. having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person dies from smallpox if vaccination instead of lack of vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9690, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that vaccination causes having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person survives smallpox if lack of vaccination instead of vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9691, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that vaccination causes having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person dies from smallpox if lack of vaccination instead of vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9692, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that vaccination causes having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person survives smallpox if vaccination instead of lack of vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that vaccination causes having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person dies from smallpox if vaccination instead of lack of vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9695, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that vaccination causes having smallpox and no vaccine reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person dies from smallpox if lack of vaccination instead of vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that vaccination causes having smallpox and no vaccine reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person survives smallpox if vaccination instead of lack of vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9698, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that taking medication causes low blood pressure. taking medication or high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person has a healthy heart if not taking medication instead of taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9699, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that taking medication causes low blood pressure. taking medication or high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person experiences a heart problems if not taking medication instead of taking medication?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9701, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that taking medication causes low blood pressure. taking medication or high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person experiences a heart problems if taking medication instead of not taking medication?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9703, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that taking medication causes low blood pressure. taking medication and high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person experiences a heart problems if not taking medication instead of taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9704, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that taking medication causes low blood pressure. taking medication and high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person has a healthy heart if taking medication instead of not taking medication?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9705, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that taking medication causes low blood pressure. taking medication and high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person experiences a heart problems if taking medication instead of not taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9708, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that taking medication causes high blood pressure. taking medication or high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person has a healthy heart if taking medication instead of not taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9709, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that taking medication causes high blood pressure. taking medication or high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person experiences a heart problems if taking medication instead of not taking medication?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9711, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that taking medication causes high blood pressure. taking medication and high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person experiences a heart problems if not taking medication instead of taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9712, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that taking medication causes high blood pressure. taking medication and high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person has a healthy heart if taking medication instead of not taking medication?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9713, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Medication has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that taking medication causes high blood pressure. taking medication and high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person experiences a heart problems if taking medication instead of not taking medication?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active or taking of all assigned drugs causes low cholesterol. We observed the patient is assigned the treatment and confounder inactive.\nWould the patient has low cholesterol if taking of all assigned drugs instead of not taking of any assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9721, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active or taking of all assigned drugs causes low cholesterol. We observed the patient is assigned the treatment and confounder active.\nWould the patient has low cholesterol if not taking of any assigned drugs instead of taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9726, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active and taking of all assigned drugs causes low cholesterol. We observed the patient is not assigned the drug treatment and confounder inactive.\nWould the patient has low cholesterol if taking of all assigned drugs instead of not taking of any assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9728, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active and taking of all assigned drugs causes low cholesterol. We observed the patient is not assigned the drug treatment and confounder active.\nWould the patient has low cholesterol if taking of all assigned drugs instead of not taking of any assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9730, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active and taking of all assigned drugs causes low cholesterol. We observed the patient is assigned the treatment and confounder inactive.\nWould the patient has low cholesterol if taking of all assigned drugs instead of not taking of any assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9740, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active and taking of all assigned drugs causes low cholesterol. We observed the patient is not assigned the drug treatment and confounder active.\nWould the patient has low cholesterol if not taking of any assigned drugs instead of taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9743, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active and taking of all assigned drugs causes low cholesterol. We observed the patient is assigned the treatment and confounder inactive.\nWould the patient has low cholesterol if not taking of any assigned drugs instead of taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9754, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active or taking of all assigned drugs causes low cholesterol. We observed the patient is not assigned the drug treatment and confounder active.\nWould the patient has high cholesterol if taking of all assigned drugs instead of not taking of any assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9755, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active or taking of all assigned drugs causes low cholesterol. We observed the patient is assigned the treatment and confounder inactive.\nWould the patient has low cholesterol if not taking of any assigned drugs instead of taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9760, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes low skill level, and we know that high skill level causes low salary.\nWould the employee has a high salary if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9762, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes low skill level, and we know that high skill level causes low salary.\nWould the employee has a high salary if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9764, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes low skill level, and we know that high skill level causes high salary.\nWould the employee has a high salary if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9766, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes low skill level, and we know that high skill level causes high salary.\nWould the employee has a high salary if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9767, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes low skill level, and we know that high skill level causes high salary.\nWould the employee has a low salary if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9768, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes high skill level, and we know that high skill level causes low salary.\nWould the employee has a high salary if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9770, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes high skill level, and we know that high skill level causes low salary.\nWould the employee has a high salary if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9772, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes high skill level, and we know that high skill level causes high salary.\nWould the employee has a high salary if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9774, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes high skill level, and we know that high skill level causes high salary.\nWould the employee has a high salary if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9782, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and close to a college causes college degree or higher. confounder active or college degree or higher causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a high salary if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9785, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and close to a college causes college degree or higher. confounder active or college degree or higher causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder active.\nWould the employee has a high salary if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9789, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes college degree or higher. confounder active and college degree or higher causes high salary. We observed the person lives far from a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a high salary if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9795, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes college degree or higher. confounder active and college degree or higher causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a high salary if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes college degree or higher. confounder active and college degree or higher causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder active.\nWould the employee has a high salary if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9799, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes college degree or higher. confounder active and college degree or higher causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder active.\nWould the employee has a low salary if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9804, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes college degree or higher. confounder active or college degree or higher causes high salary. We observed the person lives far from a college and confounder active.\nWould the employee has a low salary if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9810, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes college degree or higher. confounder active or college degree or higher causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder active.\nWould the employee has a low salary if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9811, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes college degree or higher. confounder active or college degree or higher causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder active.\nWould the employee has a high salary if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9818, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and close to a college causes college degree or higher. confounder active and college degree or higher causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a low salary if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9819, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and close to a college causes college degree or higher. confounder active and college degree or higher causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a high salary if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9821, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and close to a college causes college degree or higher. confounder active and college degree or higher causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder active.\nWould the employee has a high salary if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9823, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nWe know that encouragement causes lack of studying. encouragement or studying hard causes high exam score.\nWould the student has a low exam score if discouragement instead of encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9828, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nWe know that encouragement causes studying hard. encouragement and studying hard causes high exam score.\nWould the student has a high exam score if encouragement instead of discouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9831, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nWe know that encouragement causes studying hard. encouragement or studying hard causes high exam score.\nWould the student has a low exam score if discouragement instead of encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9834, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nWe know that encouragement causes lack of studying. encouragement and studying hard causes high exam score.\nWould the student has a high exam score if discouragement instead of encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9836, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nWe know that encouragement causes lack of studying. encouragement and studying hard causes high exam score.\nWould the student has a high exam score if encouragement instead of discouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9838, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nWe know that male gender causes non-competitive department. male gender and competitive department causes admission acceptance.\nWould the applicant gets admitted if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9840, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nWe know that male gender causes non-competitive department. male gender and competitive department causes admission acceptance.\nWould the applicant gets admitted if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9841, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nWe know that male gender causes non-competitive department. male gender and competitive department causes admission acceptance.\nWould the applicant gets rejected if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9842, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nWe know that male gender causes non-competitive department. male gender or competitive department causes admission acceptance.\nWould the applicant gets admitted if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9843, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nWe know that male gender causes non-competitive department. male gender or competitive department causes admission acceptance.\nWould the applicant gets rejected if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9844, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nWe know that male gender causes non-competitive department. male gender or competitive department causes admission acceptance.\nWould the applicant gets admitted if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9845, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nWe know that male gender causes non-competitive department. male gender or competitive department causes admission acceptance.\nWould the applicant gets rejected if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9850, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nWe know that male gender causes competitive department. male gender and competitive department causes admission acceptance.\nWould the applicant gets admitted if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9851, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status.\nWe know that male gender causes competitive department. male gender and competitive department causes admission acceptance.\nWould the applicant gets rejected if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9854, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender or in-state residency or competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the residency is out-of-state.\nWould the applicant gets admitted if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9856, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender or in-state residency or competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the residency is out-of-state.\nWould the applicant gets admitted if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9861, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender or in-state residency or competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant gets rejected if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9864, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the residency is out-of-state.\nWould the applicant gets admitted if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the residency is out-of-state.\nWould the applicant gets rejected if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9868, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant gets admitted if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9869, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant gets rejected if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9872, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the residency is out-of-state.\nWould the applicant gets admitted if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9873, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the residency is out-of-state.\nWould the applicant gets rejected if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9874, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant gets admitted if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9876, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant gets admitted if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9877, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant gets rejected if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9882, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender or in-state residency or competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant gets admitted if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9883, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender or in-state residency or competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant gets rejected if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9885, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and admission status. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on admission status. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender or in-state residency or competitive department causes admission acceptance. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant gets rejected if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9893, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or high skill level causes white-collar job. male gender and high skill level and white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a high skill level.\nWould the employee has a low salary if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9894, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and high skill level causes white-collar job. male gender or high skill level or white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a low skill level.\nWould the employee has a high salary if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9895, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and high skill level causes white-collar job. male gender or high skill level or white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a low skill level.\nWould the employee has a low salary if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9897, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and high skill level causes white-collar job. male gender or high skill level or white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a low skill level.\nWould the employee has a low salary if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and high skill level causes white-collar job. male gender and high skill level and white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a low skill level.\nWould the employee has a low salary if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9908, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and high skill level causes white-collar job. male gender and high skill level and white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a high skill level.\nWould the employee has a high salary if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9913, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or high skill level causes white-collar job. male gender or high skill level or white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a low skill level.\nWould the employee has a low salary if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9914, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or high skill level causes white-collar job. male gender or high skill level or white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a high skill level.\nWould the employee has a high salary if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9922, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that intelligent parents and confounder active causes high parental social status. intelligent parents or confounder active or high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder active.\nWould the child is intelligent if unintelligent parents instead of intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9924, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that intelligent parents and confounder active causes high parental social status. intelligent parents or confounder active or high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder active.\nWould the child is intelligent if intelligent parents instead of unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9933, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that intelligent parents or confounder active causes high parental social status. intelligent parents or confounder active or high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder active.\nWould the child is not intelligent if intelligent parents instead of unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9938, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that intelligent parents or confounder active causes high parental social status. intelligent parents and confounder active and high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder active.\nWould the child is intelligent if unintelligent parents instead of intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9939, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that intelligent parents or confounder active causes high parental social status. intelligent parents and confounder active and high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder active.\nWould the child is not intelligent if unintelligent parents instead of intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9940, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that intelligent parents or confounder active causes high parental social status. intelligent parents and confounder active and high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder active.\nWould the child is intelligent if intelligent parents instead of unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9941, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that intelligent parents or confounder active causes high parental social status. intelligent parents and confounder active and high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder active.\nWould the child is not intelligent if intelligent parents instead of unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9948, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that intelligent parents and confounder active causes high parental social status. intelligent parents and confounder active and high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder active.\nWould the child is intelligent if intelligent parents instead of unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9954, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nWe know that smoking causes being hard-working. smoking and being hard-working causes college admission.\nWould the student gets admitted to college if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9955, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nWe know that smoking causes being hard-working. smoking and being hard-working causes college admission.\nWould the student gets rejected from college if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9957, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nWe know that smoking causes being hard-working. smoking and being hard-working causes college admission.\nWould the student gets rejected from college if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nWe know that smoking causes being lazy. smoking and being hard-working causes college admission.\nWould the student gets admitted to college if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9965, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and college admission. Effort has a direct effect on college admission.\nWe know that smoking causes being hard-working. smoking or being hard-working causes college admission.\nWould the student gets rejected from college if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that obesity and smoker causes having diabetes. obesity or smoker or having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a nonsmoker.\nWould the person has a short lifespan if normal weight instead of obesity?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that obesity and smoker causes having diabetes. obesity or smoker or having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a smoker.\nWould the person has a long lifespan if normal weight instead of obesity?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that obesity and smoker causes having diabetes. obesity or smoker or having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a smoker.\nWould the person has a long lifespan if obesity instead of normal weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9984, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that obesity or smoker causes having diabetes. obesity and smoker and having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a nonsmoker.\nWould the person has a long lifespan if obesity instead of normal weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9985, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that obesity or smoker causes having diabetes. obesity and smoker and having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a nonsmoker.\nWould the person has a short lifespan if obesity instead of normal weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9991, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that obesity or smoker causes having diabetes. obesity or smoker or having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a nonsmoker.\nWould the person has a short lifespan if normal weight instead of obesity?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9993, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Obesity has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that obesity or smoker causes having diabetes. obesity or smoker or having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a nonsmoker.\nWould the person has a short lifespan if obesity instead of normal weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 9998, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nWe know that citrus intake causes vitamin C deficiency, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes scurvy.\nWould the patient has scurvy if absence of citrus instead of citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 9999, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nWe know that citrus intake causes vitamin C deficiency, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes scurvy.\nWould the patient recovers from scurvy if absence of citrus instead of citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nWe know that citrus intake causes vitamin C deficiency, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes no scurvy.\nWould the patient has scurvy if absence of citrus instead of citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10004, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nWe know that citrus intake causes vitamin C deficiency, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes no scurvy.\nWould the patient has scurvy if citrus intake instead of absence of citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10005, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nWe know that citrus intake causes vitamin C deficiency, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes no scurvy.\nWould the patient recovers from scurvy if citrus intake instead of absence of citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10006, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nWe know that citrus intake causes sufficient vitamin C, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes scurvy.\nWould the patient has scurvy if absence of citrus instead of citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nWe know that citrus intake causes sufficient vitamin C, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes scurvy.\nWould the patient recovers from scurvy if absence of citrus instead of citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10008, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nWe know that citrus intake causes sufficient vitamin C, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes scurvy.\nWould the patient has scurvy if citrus intake instead of absence of citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10009, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nWe know that citrus intake causes sufficient vitamin C, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes scurvy.\nWould the patient recovers from scurvy if citrus intake instead of absence of citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nWe know that citrus intake causes sufficient vitamin C, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes no scurvy.\nWould the patient has scurvy if absence of citrus instead of citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10011, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nWe know that citrus intake causes sufficient vitamin C, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes no scurvy.\nWould the patient recovers from scurvy if absence of citrus instead of citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10013, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on scurvy.\nWe know that citrus intake causes sufficient vitamin C, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes no scurvy.\nWould the patient recovers from scurvy if citrus intake instead of absence of citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10018, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand and increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes increased price. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is high.\nWould there is a reduced price if reduced supply instead of increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10021, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand and increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes increased price. We observed the farm has an increased yield per acre and the demand is low.\nWould there is an increased price if reduced supply instead of increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10023, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand and increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes increased price. We observed the farm has an increased yield per acre and the demand is low.\nWould there is an increased price if increased supply instead of reduced supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10026, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand and increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes increased price. We observed the farm has an increased yield per acre and the demand is high.\nWould there is an increased price if increased supply instead of reduced supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand and increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand or increased supply causes increased price. We observed the farm has an increased yield per acre and the demand is low.\nWould there is an increased price if reduced supply instead of increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10039, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand or increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes increased price. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is low.\nWould there is an increased price if reduced supply instead of increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10041, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand or increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes increased price. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is low.\nWould there is an increased price if increased supply instead of reduced supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10044, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand or increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes increased price. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is high.\nWould there is a reduced price if increased supply instead of reduced supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10048, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand or increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes increased price. We observed the farm has an increased yield per acre and the demand is high.\nWould there is a reduced price if increased supply instead of reduced supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10050, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand or increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand or increased supply causes increased price. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is low.\nWould there is a reduced price if reduced supply instead of increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10052, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand or increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand or increased supply causes increased price. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is high.\nWould there is a reduced price if reduced supply instead of increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10061, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes receives treatment. male gender or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient is not male.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10063, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes receives treatment. male gender or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient is not male.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10064, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes receives treatment. male gender or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient is male.\nWould the patient does recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10065, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes receives treatment. male gender or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient is male.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10067, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes receives treatment. male gender or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient is male.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10070, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes receives treatment. male gender and receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient is not male.\nWould the patient does recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes receives treatment. male gender and receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient is male.\nWould the patient does recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10076, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes receives no treatment. male gender and receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient is not male.\nWould the patient does recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10077, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes receives no treatment. male gender and receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient is not male.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10083, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes receives no treatment. male gender and receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient is male.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10086, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes receives no treatment. male gender or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient is not male.\nWould the patient does recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10087, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes receives no treatment. male gender or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient is not male.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10088, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes receives no treatment. male gender or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient is male.\nWould the patient does recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10094, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes high hospital bill. old age and high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is young.\nWould the patient recovers if high hospital bill instead of low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10096, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes high hospital bill. old age and high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient recovers if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10098, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes high hospital bill. old age and high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient recovers if high hospital bill instead of low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes low hospital bill. old age and high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is young.\nWould the patient recovers if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10103, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes low hospital bill. old age and high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is young.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if high hospital bill instead of low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10104, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes low hospital bill. old age and high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient recovers if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10105, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes low hospital bill. old age and high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10106, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes low hospital bill. old age and high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient recovers if high hospital bill instead of low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10108, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes high hospital bill. old age or high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is young.\nWould the patient recovers if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10112, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes high hospital bill. old age or high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient recovers if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes high hospital bill. old age or high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10115, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes high hospital bill. old age or high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if high hospital bill instead of low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes low hospital bill. old age or high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is young.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10120, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes low hospital bill. old age or high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient recovers if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10121, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and recovery. Hospital costs has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that old age causes low hospital bill. old age or high hospital bill causes recovery. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives no treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10130, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives no treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient does recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10132, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives no treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a small kidney stone.\nWould the patient does recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10134, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives no treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a small kidney stone.\nWould the patient does recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10135, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives no treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a small kidney stone.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10136, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives no treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient does recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10140, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a small kidney stone.\nWould the patient does recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10141, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a small kidney stone.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10143, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a small kidney stone.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10145, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10146, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient does recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10147, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a small kidney stone.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10151, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a small kidney stone.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10153, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10155, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and recovery. Treatment has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes recovery. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10157, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes vaccine refusal. pre-conditions or getting the vaccine causes recovering from the disease. We observed the person has no pre-conditions.\nWould the person dies from the disease if vaccine refusal instead of getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10161, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes vaccine refusal. pre-conditions or getting the vaccine causes recovering from the disease. We observed the person has pre-conditions.\nWould the person dies from the disease if vaccine refusal instead of getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10165, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes getting the vaccine. pre-conditions and getting the vaccine causes recovering from the disease. We observed the person has no pre-conditions.\nWould the person dies from the disease if vaccine refusal instead of getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10167, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes getting the vaccine. pre-conditions and getting the vaccine causes recovering from the disease. We observed the person has no pre-conditions.\nWould the person dies from the disease if getting the vaccine instead of vaccine refusal?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10173, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes getting the vaccine. pre-conditions or getting the vaccine causes recovering from the disease. We observed the person has no pre-conditions.\nWould the person dies from the disease if vaccine refusal instead of getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10175, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes getting the vaccine. pre-conditions or getting the vaccine causes recovering from the disease. We observed the person has no pre-conditions.\nWould the person dies from the disease if getting the vaccine instead of vaccine refusal?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10179, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes getting the vaccine. pre-conditions or getting the vaccine causes recovering from the disease. We observed the person has pre-conditions.\nWould the person dies from the disease if getting the vaccine instead of vaccine refusal?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10180, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes vaccine refusal. pre-conditions and getting the vaccine causes recovering from the disease. We observed the person has no pre-conditions.\nWould the person recovers from the disease if vaccine refusal instead of getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10183, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes vaccine refusal. pre-conditions and getting the vaccine causes recovering from the disease. We observed the person has no pre-conditions.\nWould the person dies from the disease if getting the vaccine instead of vaccine refusal?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10184, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes vaccine refusal. pre-conditions and getting the vaccine causes recovering from the disease. We observed the person has pre-conditions.\nWould the person recovers from the disease if vaccine refusal instead of getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10185, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and disease. Vaccination has a direct effect on disease.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes vaccine refusal. pre-conditions and getting the vaccine causes recovering from the disease. We observed the person has pre-conditions.\nWould the person dies from the disease if vaccine refusal instead of getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10188, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking mother or good health causes normal infant birth weight. smoking mother and good health and normal infant birth weight causes high infant mortality. We observed the person has poor health.\nWould infant mortality is high if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10197, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking mother and good health causes normal infant birth weight. smoking mother or good health or normal infant birth weight causes high infant mortality. We observed the person has poor health.\nWould infant mortality is low if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10198, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking mother and good health causes normal infant birth weight. smoking mother or good health or normal infant birth weight causes high infant mortality. We observed the person has poor health.\nWould infant mortality is high if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10200, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking mother and good health causes normal infant birth weight. smoking mother or good health or normal infant birth weight causes high infant mortality. We observed the person has good health.\nWould infant mortality is high if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10208, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking mother and good health causes normal infant birth weight. smoking mother and good health and normal infant birth weight causes high infant mortality. We observed the person has good health.\nWould infant mortality is high if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10213, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking mother or good health causes normal infant birth weight. smoking mother or good health or normal infant birth weight causes high infant mortality. We observed the person has poor health.\nWould infant mortality is low if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10214, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking mother or good health causes normal infant birth weight. smoking mother or good health or normal infant birth weight causes high infant mortality. We observed the person has poor health.\nWould infant mortality is high if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10220, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10222, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10223, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10225, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10226, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10227, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10228, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10229, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10230, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10232, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10233, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10234, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10238, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10239, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10240, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10242, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10244, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10245, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10246, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10249, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10250, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person has lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10251, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes lung cancer. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10252, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking gene or high pollution causes smoking. smoking gene or high pollution or smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with low pollution.\nWould the person has lung cancer if nonsmoking gene instead of smoking gene?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10253, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking gene or high pollution causes smoking. smoking gene or high pollution or smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with low pollution.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if nonsmoking gene instead of smoking gene?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10256, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking gene or high pollution causes smoking. smoking gene or high pollution or smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with high pollution.\nWould the person has lung cancer if nonsmoking gene instead of smoking gene?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10265, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking gene or high pollution causes smoking. smoking gene and high pollution and smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with high pollution.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if nonsmoking gene instead of smoking gene?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10276, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking gene and high pollution causes smoking. smoking gene and high pollution and smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with low pollution.\nWould the person has lung cancer if nonsmoking gene instead of smoking gene?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking gene and high pollution causes smoking. smoking gene and high pollution and smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with low pollution.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if nonsmoking gene instead of smoking gene?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10282, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking gene and high pollution causes smoking. smoking gene and high pollution and smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with high pollution.\nWould the person has lung cancer if smoking gene instead of nonsmoking gene?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10283, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gene has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking gene and high pollution causes smoking. smoking gene and high pollution and smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with high pollution.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if smoking gene instead of nonsmoking gene?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that smoking causes absence of tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes lung cancer.\nWould the person has lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10286, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that smoking causes absence of tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes lung cancer.\nWould the person has lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10287, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that smoking causes absence of tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes lung cancer.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10291, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that smoking causes absence of tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes absence of lung cancer.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10292, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that smoking causes high tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes lung cancer.\nWould the person has lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10295, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that smoking causes high tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes lung cancer.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10296, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that smoking causes high tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes absence of lung cancer.\nWould the person has lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10297, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that smoking causes high tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes absence of lung cancer.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10299, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that smoking causes high tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes absence of lung cancer.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10311, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active and smoking mother causes normal infant birth weight. We observed the cigarette tax is low and confounder inactive.\nWould the infant is born with a normal weight if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10313, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active and smoking mother causes normal infant birth weight. We observed the cigarette tax is low and confounder active.\nWould the infant is born with a normal weight if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10317, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active and smoking mother causes normal infant birth weight. We observed the cigarette tax is high and confounder inactive.\nWould the infant is born with low weight if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active and smoking mother causes normal infant birth weight. We observed the cigarette tax is high and confounder inactive.\nWould the infant is born with a normal weight if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10319, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active and smoking mother causes normal infant birth weight. We observed the cigarette tax is high and confounder inactive.\nWould the infant is born with low weight if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10327, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active or smoking mother causes normal infant birth weight. We observed the cigarette tax is low and confounder active.\nWould the infant is born with a normal weight if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active or smoking mother causes normal infant birth weight. We observed the cigarette tax is high and confounder inactive.\nWould the infant is born with low weight if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10344, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active and smoking mother causes normal infant birth weight. We observed the cigarette tax is high and confounder active.\nWould the infant is born with a normal weight if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10347, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes clean water. high poverty and clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a local water company and the region has low poverty.\nWould the person avoids cholera if polluted water instead of clean water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes clean water. high poverty and clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a local water company and the region has low poverty.\nWould the person gets cholera if clean water instead of polluted water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10352, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes clean water. high poverty and clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a local water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person avoids cholera if clean water instead of polluted water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10355, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes clean water. high poverty and clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a global water company and the region has low poverty.\nWould the person gets cholera if clean water instead of polluted water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10357, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes clean water. high poverty and clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a global water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person gets cholera if clean water instead of polluted water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10360, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty or global water company causes clean water. high poverty or clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a local water company and the region has low poverty.\nWould the person gets cholera if clean water instead of polluted water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10362, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty or global water company causes clean water. high poverty or clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a local water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person gets cholera if polluted water instead of clean water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10364, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty or global water company causes clean water. high poverty or clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a local water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person gets cholera if clean water instead of polluted water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10366, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty or global water company causes clean water. high poverty or clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a global water company and the region has low poverty.\nWould the person gets cholera if polluted water instead of clean water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10376, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes clean water. high poverty or clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a local water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person avoids cholera if clean water instead of polluted water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10379, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes clean water. high poverty or clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a global water company and the region has low poverty.\nWould the person avoids cholera if clean water instead of polluted water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes clean water. high poverty or clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a global water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person avoids cholera if polluted water instead of clean water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10387, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty or global water company causes clean water. high poverty and clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a global water company and the region has low poverty.\nWould the person gets cholera if polluted water instead of clean water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10390, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty or global water company causes clean water. high poverty and clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a global water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person gets cholera if clean water instead of polluted water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10391, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty or global water company causes clean water. high poverty and clean water causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a global water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person avoids cholera if clean water instead of polluted water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10399, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 26%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 76%.\nWill drinking coffee decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10401, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 50%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 64%.\nFor people who drink coffee, would it be more likely to see ringing alarm if the person did not drink coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10402, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 17%. For people who do not drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 64%. For people who drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 51%. For people who drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 98%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 72%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 27%.\nDoes drinking coffee negatively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10404, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 76%. The probability of not drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 12%. The probability of drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 48%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm larger when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10405, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock case by case according to wife. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10410, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 82%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 20%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 68%.\nIs ringing alarm more likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10412, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 41%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 47%.\nFor people who drink coffee, would it be less likely to see ringing alarm if the person did not drink coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10413, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 11%. For people who do not drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 60%. For people who drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 46%. For people who drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 92%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 61%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 1%.\nDoes drinking coffee positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10414, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 11%. For people who do not drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 60%. For people who drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 46%. For people who drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 92%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 61%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 1%.\nDoes drinking coffee negatively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10416, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 66%. The probability of not drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 14%. The probability of drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 31%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm smaller when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10417, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 26%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 71%.\nFor people who drink coffee, would it be more likely to see ringing alarm if the person did not drink coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10421, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 88%. The probability of not drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 3%. The probability of drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 63%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm larger when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 51%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 49%.\nWill drinking coffee decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wife.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10444, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 74%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 34%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 68%.\nIs ringing alarm more likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10446, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 58%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 61%.\nWill drinking coffee increase the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10450, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 76%. The probability of not drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 14%. The probability of drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 47%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm smaller when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wife.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10452, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 44%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 75%.\nWill drinking coffee decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10455, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 8%. For people who do not drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 51%. For people who drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 49%. For people who drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 92%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 85%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 60%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would drinking coffee negatively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10457, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 84%. The probability of not drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 7%. The probability of drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 62%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm larger when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10460, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 9%. For people who do not drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 55%. For people who drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 42%. For people who drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 86%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 90%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 30%.\nDoes drinking coffee positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 9%. For people who do not drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 55%. For people who drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 42%. For people who drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 86%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 90%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 30%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would drinking coffee negatively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10464, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock case by case according to wife. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10465, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 10%. For people who do not drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 55%. For people who drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 52%. For people who drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 96%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 65%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 22%.\nDoes drinking coffee positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10468, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 78%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 56%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 66%.\nIs ringing alarm more likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10471, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 10%. For people who do not drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 54%. For people who drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 55%. For people who drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 95%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 24%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 77%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would drinking coffee positively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10472, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 81%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 21%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 86%.\nIs ringing alarm more likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10473, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 81%. The probability of not drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 4%. The probability of drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 70%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm larger when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10483, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wife.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10486, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock case by case according to wife. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10487, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 10%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 69%.\nFor people who drink coffee, would it be less likely to see ringing alarm if the person did not drink coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10500, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 1%. For people who do not drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 49%. For people who drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 44%. For people who drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 90%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 82%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 78%.\nDoes drinking coffee negatively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock case by case according to wife. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10513, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 24%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 44%.\nWill drinking coffee decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10514, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 24%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of ringing alarm is 44%.\nFor people who drink coffee, would it be more likely to see ringing alarm if the person did not drink coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10515, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 9%. For people who do not drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 59%. For people who drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 43%. For people who drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 96%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 30%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 3%.\nDoes drinking coffee positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10519, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock case by case according to wife. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10521, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 9%. For people who do not drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 54%. For people who drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 52%. For people who drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 95%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 98%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 70%.\nDoes drinking coffee positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10531, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with alarm clock in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wife.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 77%. The probability of not drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 7%. The probability of drinking coffee and ringing alarm is 35%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm smaller when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10544, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 3%. For people who do not drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 50%. For people who drink coffee and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 50%. For people who drink coffee and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 97%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 63%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of alarm set by wife is 84%.\nDoes drinking coffee positively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10550, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 68%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 37%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 75%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10556, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10565, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 56%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 55%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 89%.\nIs dark room less likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10569, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 43%. The probability of not liking spicy food and dark room is 22%. The probability of liking spicy food and dark room is 31%.\nIs the chance of dark room smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10580, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 25%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 29%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 64%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10581, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 25%. The probability of not liking spicy food and dark room is 22%. The probability of liking spicy food and dark room is 16%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 30%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 61%.\nFor people who like spicy food, would it be more likely to see dark room if the person did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10587, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 31%. The probability of not liking spicy food and dark room is 21%. The probability of liking spicy food and dark room is 19%.\nIs the chance of dark room smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10589, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 38%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 72%.\nFor people who like spicy food, would it be more likely to see dark room if the person did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 48%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 79%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10595, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 50%. The probability of not liking spicy food and dark room is 24%. The probability of liking spicy food and dark room is 40%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10599, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 51%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 93%.\nFor people who like spicy food, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10604, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 22%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 48%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 78%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10605, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 38%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 73%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10608, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 30%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 63%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 34%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 67%.\nFor people who like spicy food, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10613, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 54%. The probability of not liking spicy food and dark room is 16%. The probability of liking spicy food and dark room is 36%.\nIs the chance of dark room smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10614, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10618, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look at how liking spicy food correlates with room case by case according to the candle. Method 2: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with room in general.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10620, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10623, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 53%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 43%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 74%.\nIs dark room less likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10627, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10629, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 41%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 74%.\nFor people who like spicy food, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 43%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 48%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 80%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10634, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 41%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 74%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10635, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 38%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 41%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 74%.\nIs dark room less likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10638, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 63%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 47%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 82%.\nIs dark room less likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 31%. The probability of not liking spicy food and dark room is 39%. The probability of liking spicy food and dark room is 28%.\nIs the chance of dark room smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10652, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10656, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 55%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 86%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10657, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 26%. The probability of not liking spicy food and dark room is 41%. The probability of liking spicy food and dark room is 22%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10659, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look at how liking spicy food correlates with room case by case according to the candle. Method 2: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with room in general.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10660, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10661, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 33%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 68%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10663, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 53%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 33%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of dark room is 68%.\nIs dark room less likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10665, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10667, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 86%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 31%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 70%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10670, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 9%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 54%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 46%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 90%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 17%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 27%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10673, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 40%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 10%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 23%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10674, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how having visited England affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10677, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how having visited England affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10679, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 23%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 57%. For CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 43%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 79%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 17%.\nWill having visited England decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10681, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 32%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 16%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 21%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10682, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 49%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 14%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 37%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10683, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 16%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 37%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 71%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 13%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 10%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 84%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 19%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 26%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10685, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 30%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 18%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 57%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10686, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 30%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 18%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 57%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 30%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 13%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 17%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10689, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 6%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 48%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 89%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 33%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 44%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10690, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 43%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 18%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 66%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10691, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 43%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 11%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 28%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 9%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 49%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 42%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 90%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 11%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 91%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10694, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how having visited England affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 31%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 21%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 24%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10699, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 22%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 61%. For CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 82%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 22%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10701, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 40%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 25%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 69%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10703, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 43%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 81%. For CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 63%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 98%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 26%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10704, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 43%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 81%. For CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 63%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 98%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 26%.\nWill having visited England decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10705, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 21%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 64%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 63%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 99%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 60%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 64%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10707, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10709, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 61%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 31%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 67%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10710, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 61%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 31%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 67%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10711, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 61%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 12%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 41%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10713, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 22%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 59%. For CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 49%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 84%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 13%.\nWill having visited England decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10714, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 37%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 23%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 66%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10715, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 37%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 23%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 66%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10718, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 11%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 51%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 45%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 88%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 35%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 48%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 11%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 51%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 45%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 88%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 35%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 48%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10722, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 17%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 53%. For CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 79%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 18%.\nWill having visited England decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10724, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 55%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 18%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 61%.\nIs employee being fired more likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10727, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 9%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 54%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 46%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 87%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 38%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 50%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10728, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 19%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 21%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 12%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10729, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 19%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 21%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 12%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10730, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how having visited England affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10731, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 27%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 59%. For CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 42%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 74%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 12%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10733, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 17%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 51%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 49%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 84%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 30%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 38%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10734, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 45%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 27%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 62%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10735, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 45%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 15%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 28%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10740, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 56%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 14%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 40%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10741, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 34%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 73%. For CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 83%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 11%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10742, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 9%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 50%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 85%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 66%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 73%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10744, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 24%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 26%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 18%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired larger when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10745, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10746, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 21%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 51%. For CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 35%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 66%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 28%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10747, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 17%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 48%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 47%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 80%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 15%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 39%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10749, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 39%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 22%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 60%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10750, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with employee case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with employee in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10752, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 3%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 43%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 85%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 22%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 78%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10753, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 22%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 14%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 76%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10754, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how having visited England affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10756, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 10%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 44%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 49%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 82%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 27%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 36%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be less likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10757, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 66%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 19%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 61%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10761, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 34%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 19%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 22%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10764, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 17%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 56%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 52%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 88%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 31%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 36%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10767, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 43%. The probability of not having visited England and employee being fired is 16%. The probability of having visited England and employee being fired is 28%.\nIs the chance of employee being fired smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10770, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 22%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 60%. For CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 39%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 76%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 23%.\nWill having visited England decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10771, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 7%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 57%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 45%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 93%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 37%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 48%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor people who have not visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 5%. For people who have not visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 39%. For people who have visited England and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 40%. For people who have visited England and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of employee being fired is 79%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 42%. For people who have visited England, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 63%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see employee being fired if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10775, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 14%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 19%. For people who have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 64%.\nIs employee being fired less likely than employee not being fired overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10777, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 24%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 58%. For CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 45%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 78%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 15%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 18%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 55%. For CEOs who fire employees and have not visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 35%. For CEOs who fire employees and have visited England, the probability of employee being fired is 71%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 29%.\nWill having visited England decrease the chance of employee being fired?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10781, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with employee in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how having visited England affects employee, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10782, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 20%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 53%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10788, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how having a sister affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10789, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 50%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 69%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10794, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 54%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 50%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 69%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10797, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 40%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 83%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 40%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 83%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10801, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how having a sister affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10807, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 34%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 80%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10819, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 68%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 21%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 65%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10820, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 68%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 21%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 65%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10822, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10825, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 35%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 57%.\nDoes having a sister negatively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10830, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 55%. The probability of not having a sister and the prisoner's death is 16%. The probability of having a sister and the prisoner's death is 39%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10833, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 40%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 74%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10835, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 66%. The probability of not having a sister and the prisoner's death is 14%. The probability of having a sister and the prisoner's death is 48%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10836, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10837, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how having a sister affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10839, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 33%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 56%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10840, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 33%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 56%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10842, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 33%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 56%.\nDoes having a sister negatively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10843, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 59%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 33%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 56%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10846, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 20%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 69%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10848, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 52%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 20%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 69%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10852, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how having a sister affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10854, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 29%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 50%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10856, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 41%. The probability of not having a sister and the prisoner's death is 17%. The probability of having a sister and the prisoner's death is 20%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10859, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 31%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 75%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10861, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 76%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 31%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 75%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10862, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 76%. The probability of not having a sister and the prisoner's death is 7%. The probability of having a sister and the prisoner's death is 58%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10864, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 50%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 76%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 50%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 76%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10867, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 77%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 50%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 76%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10869, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how having a sister affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10872, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 79%. The probability of not having a sister and the prisoner's death is 7%. The probability of having a sister and the prisoner's death is 56%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10873, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10874, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 36%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 52%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10876, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 59%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 36%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 52%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10877, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 59%. The probability of not having a sister and the prisoner's death is 15%. The probability of having a sister and the prisoner's death is 31%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10879, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 29%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 72%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10881, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 29%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 72%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10890, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 24%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 71%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10891, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 73%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 24%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 71%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10892, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 73%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 24%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 71%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10894, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 73%. The probability of not having a sister and the prisoner's death is 7%. The probability of having a sister and the prisoner's death is 52%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10896, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 83%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 93%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10902, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how having a sister affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 36%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 63%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10904, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 52%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 36%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 63%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10907, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 26%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 68%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10911, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how having a sister affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10916, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how having a sister affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10917, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 53%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 66%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10919, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 44%. The probability of not having a sister and the prisoner's death is 30%. The probability of having a sister and the prisoner's death is 29%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10921, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 45%. For people who have a sister, the probability of the prisoner's death is 74%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 16%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 56%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 54%.\nIs wet ground more likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10936, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how full moon correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how full moon correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how full moon affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10937, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 49%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 49%.\nWill full moon increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10948, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 52%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 57%.\nWill full moon increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10950, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 52%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 57%.\nFor situations where there is a full moon, would it be less likely to see wet ground if there were a full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10955, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 20%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 43%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 54%.\nIs wet ground less likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10956, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how full moon correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how full moon correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how full moon affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10957, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how full moon correlates with ground in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how full moon affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10965, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how full moon correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how full moon correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how full moon affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10967, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 44%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 51%.\nWill full moon decrease the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10968, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 19%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 44%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 51%.\nIs wet ground more likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10969, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 19%. The probability of no full moon and wet ground is 35%. The probability of full moon and wet ground is 10%.\nIs the chance of wet ground larger when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 15%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 46%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 57%.\nIs wet ground less likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10973, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 15%. The probability of no full moon and wet ground is 39%. The probability of full moon and wet ground is 8%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how full moon correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how full moon correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how full moon affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10976, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 83%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 79%.\nFor situations where there is a full moon, would it be less likely to see wet ground if there were a full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10977, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 83%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 79%.\nDoes full moon negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10979, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 55%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 62%.\nWill full moon decrease the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 55%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 62%.\nDoes full moon positively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10988, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 44%. The probability of no full moon and wet ground is 30%. The probability of full moon and wet ground is 28%.\nIs the chance of wet ground larger when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 10992, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 37%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 42%.\nFor situations where there is a full moon, would it be more likely to see wet ground if there were a full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10997, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 24%. The probability of no full moon and wet ground is 28%. The probability of full moon and wet ground is 10%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 10999, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 19%. The probability of no full moon and wet ground is 32%. The probability of full moon and wet ground is 8%.\nIs the chance of wet ground larger when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 61%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 70%.\nDoes full moon negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11004, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 48%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 62%.\nWill full moon increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11006, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 48%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 62%.\nFor situations where there is a full moon, would it be more likely to see wet ground if there were a full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 48%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 62%.\nFor situations where there is a full moon, would it be less likely to see wet ground if there were a full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11008, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 48%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 62%.\nDoes full moon negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how full moon correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how full moon correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how full moon affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11011, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 48%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 61%.\nWill full moon increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11012, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 31%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 48%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 61%.\nIs wet ground more likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11013, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 31%. The probability of no full moon and wet ground is 33%. The probability of full moon and wet ground is 19%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11015, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 38%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 43%.\nWill full moon increase the chance of wet ground?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11016, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 38%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 43%.\nFor situations where there is a full moon, would it be less likely to see wet ground if there were a full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11017, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 38%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 43%.\nDoes full moon positively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11018, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 38%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 43%.\nDoes full moon negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11019, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 49%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 38%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 43%.\nIs wet ground less likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11023, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 33%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 48%.\nDoes full moon positively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11025, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 20%. The probability of no full moon and wet ground is 26%. The probability of full moon and wet ground is 9%.\nIs the chance of wet ground larger when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11026, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how full moon correlates with ground in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how full moon affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11029, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 35%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 49%.\nDoes full moon negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11032, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 44%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 48%.\nFor situations where there is a full moon, would it be more likely to see wet ground if there were a full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 25%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 44%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 48%.\nIs wet ground more likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11035, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 13%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 30%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 40%.\nIs wet ground less likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11038, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how full moon correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how full moon correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how full moon affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11040, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 47%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 53%.\nDoes full moon negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11041, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 16%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 47%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 53%.\nIs wet ground less likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11049, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how full moon correlates with ground in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how full moon affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11051, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 32%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 37%.\nFor situations where there is a full moon, would it be less likely to see wet ground if there were a full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11052, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 43%. The probability of no full moon and wet ground is 18%. The probability of full moon and wet ground is 16%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11053, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 55%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 60%.\nFor situations where there is a full moon, would it be more likely to see wet ground if there were a full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11054, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 55%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 60%.\nDoes full moon positively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11055, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 55%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 60%.\nDoes full moon negatively affect ground through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11056, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 41%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 55%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 60%.\nIs wet ground less likely than dry ground overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11057, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 41%. The probability of no full moon and wet ground is 32%. The probability of full moon and wet ground is 25%.\nIs the chance of wet ground smaller when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11061, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nFor situations where there is no full moon, the probability of wet ground is 31%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of wet ground is 46%.\nFor situations where there is a full moon, would it be more likely to see wet ground if there were a full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11064, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nMethod 1: We look at how full moon correlates with ground case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how full moon correlates with ground in general.\nTo understand how full moon affects ground, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11066, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 21%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 92%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11071, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 38%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 78%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 38%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 78%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11073, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 1%. The probability of not liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 38%. The probability of liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 1%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11077, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11083, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 9%. The probability of not liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 18%. The probability of liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 5%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11089, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 43%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 81%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11094, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look at how liking spicy food correlates with the forest case by case according to the smoker. Method 2: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with the forest in general.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 13%. The probability of not liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 43%. The probability of liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 13%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11103, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 5%. The probability of not liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 35%. The probability of liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 3%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11105, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11108, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 28%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 74%.\nFor people who like spicy food, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11112, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11114, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 34%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 67%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11115, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 34%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 67%.\nFor people who like spicy food, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11118, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 28%. The probability of not liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 31%. The probability of liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 21%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11122, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 1%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 35%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 84%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11126, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 52%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 88%.\nFor people who like spicy food, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11127, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 30%. The probability of not liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 37%. The probability of liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 26%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11128, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 24%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 34%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 60%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 24%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 34%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 60%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11132, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look at how liking spicy food correlates with the forest case by case according to the smoker. Method 2: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with the forest in general.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11134, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 47%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 75%.\nFor people who like spicy food, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11140, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 14%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 28%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 86%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11145, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 22%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 27%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 60%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11147, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 36%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 65%.\nFor people who like spicy food, would it be less likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 22%. The probability of not liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 28%. The probability of liking spicy food and the forest on fire is 14%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11150, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 41%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 82%.\nFor people who like spicy food, would it be less likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11158, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 23%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 58%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11161, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look at how liking spicy food correlates with the forest case by case according to the smoker. Method 2: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with the forest in general.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11165, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 3%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 26%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 69%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11168, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 34%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 63%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11169, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 34%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 63%.\nFor people who like spicy food, would it be less likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11172, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11173, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 39%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of the forest on fire is 68%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11180, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look at how liking spicy food correlates with the forest case by case according to the smoker. Method 2: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with the forest in general.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11181, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 77%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 41%.\nWill solar eclipse decrease the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11191, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of solar eclipse is 53%. The probability of no solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 35%. The probability of solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 20%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time smaller when observing solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11194, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 69%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 36%.\nFor situations where there is a solar eclipse, would it be less likely to see arriving to school on time if there were a solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11195, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of solar eclipse is 33%. The probability of no solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 46%. The probability of solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 12%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11197, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of solar eclipse is 65%. The probability of no solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 23%. The probability of solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 24%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time smaller when observing solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11199, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of solar eclipse is 32%. The probability of no solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 41%. The probability of solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 10%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11205, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of solar eclipse is 42%. For situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 62%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 31%.\nIs arriving to school on time more likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11212, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 81%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 48%.\nWill solar eclipse decrease the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11217, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 64%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 33%.\nWill solar eclipse decrease the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11223, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to traffic.\nTo understand how solar eclipse affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11225, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of solar eclipse is 85%. The probability of no solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 7%. The probability of solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 12%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11234, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how solar eclipse affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11237, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of solar eclipse is 48%. The probability of no solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 49%. The probability of solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 15%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time larger when observing solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11239, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to traffic.\nTo understand how solar eclipse affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of solar eclipse is 64%. For situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 60%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 33%.\nIs arriving to school on time more likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11248, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of solar eclipse is 81%. The probability of no solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 11%. The probability of solar eclipse and arriving to school on time is 19%.\nIs the chance of arriving to school on time smaller when observing solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11249, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 74%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 30%.\nWill solar eclipse increase the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11254, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to traffic.\nTo understand how solar eclipse affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11256, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 85%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 49%.\nWill solar eclipse decrease the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11259, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how solar eclipse affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11260, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 39%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 4%.\nWill solar eclipse increase the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how solar eclipse affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11265, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 56%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 18%.\nWill solar eclipse decrease the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11269, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how solar eclipse affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11273, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 88%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 45%.\nFor situations where there is a solar eclipse, would it be less likely to see arriving to school on time if there were a solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of solar eclipse is 79%. For situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 81%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 41%.\nIs arriving to school on time less likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nFor situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 50%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 5%.\nWill solar eclipse increase the chance of arriving to school on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11288, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how solar eclipse affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11294, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nThe overall probability of solar eclipse is 61%. For situations where there is no solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 60%. For situations where there is a solar eclipse, the probability of arriving to school on time is 22%.\nIs arriving to school on time more likely than arriving to school late overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11296, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school in general.\nTo understand how solar eclipse affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11297, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how solar eclipse correlates with Alice arriving to school in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to traffic.\nTo understand how solar eclipse affects Alice arriving to school, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11308, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11313, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 2%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and large feet is 17%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and large feet is 2%.\nIs the chance of large feet larger when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11317, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to going to the beach.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 23%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 71%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be less likely to see large feet if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11321, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11326, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 4%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and large feet is 15%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and large feet is 3%.\nIs the chance of large feet larger when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11328, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 6%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 31%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 85%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11329, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 5%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 16%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 66%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11334, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11335, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to going to the beach.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11343, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 5%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 23%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 76%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11344, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 7%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and large feet is 26%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and large feet is 5%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 21%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 72%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 5%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and large feet is 13%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and large feet is 3%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11359, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 13%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 70%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11362, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 10%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 13%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 70%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11366, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 5%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and large feet is 6%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and large feet is 3%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11367, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 7%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 59%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11374, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 30%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 84%.\nWill tanning salon treatment decrease the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11376, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 8%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 30%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 84%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 5%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 42%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 90%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11383, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11385, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 4%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 7%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 60%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11390, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 0%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and large feet is 28%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and large feet is 0%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11391, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 17%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 70%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11392, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 1%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and large feet is 16%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and large feet is 1%.\nIs the chance of large feet larger when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11394, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11398, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 9%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and large feet is 33%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and large feet is 8%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11399, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to going to the beach.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11401, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 3%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of large feet is 25%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of large feet is 71%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11405, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 64%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 53%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 45%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11409, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 54%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 49%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be less likely to see large feet if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11411, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 15%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 58%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 30%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 73%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 90%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 46%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect foot size through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11414, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with foot size case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11425, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 37%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 42%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 49%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11431, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 29%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 67%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 40%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 76%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 93%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 40%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect foot size through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11434, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 66%. The probability of taking the stairs and large feet is 22%. The probability of taking the elevator and large feet is 46%.\nIs the chance of large feet larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11439, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 11%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 61%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 22%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 73%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 37%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 10%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision negatively affect foot size?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11442, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with foot size case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11444, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 43%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 50%.\nWill taking the elevator decrease the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11448, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 6%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 60%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 23%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 77%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 68%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 50%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect foot size?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 77%. The probability of taking the stairs and large feet is 10%. The probability of taking the elevator and large feet is 38%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how my decision correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to penguin mood.\nTo understand how my decision affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11457, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 15%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 63%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 29%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 77%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 64%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 40%.\nDoes my decision positively affect foot size through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11461, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with foot size case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 34%.\nWill taking the elevator increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11467, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with foot size case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11479, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 22%.\nWill taking the elevator increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11480, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 22%.\nWill taking the elevator decrease the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11481, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 22%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be more likely to see large feet if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11482, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 22%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be less likely to see large feet if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11487, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how my decision correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to penguin mood.\nTo understand how my decision affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11492, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with foot size case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11496, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how my decision correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to penguin mood.\nTo understand how my decision affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11504, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 36%. The probability of taking the stairs and large feet is 29%. The probability of taking the elevator and large feet is 17%.\nIs the chance of large feet larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11507, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 68%. The probability of taking the stairs and large feet is 15%. The probability of taking the elevator and large feet is 29%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11509, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 72%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 66%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be more likely to see large feet if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11513, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 67%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 67%.\nWill taking the elevator increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11516, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 30%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 82%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 46%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 95%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 71%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 43%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect foot size through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11517, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 30%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 82%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 46%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 95%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 71%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 43%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect foot size?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11521, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 27%.\nWill taking the elevator decrease the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11527, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 37%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 80%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 43%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 96%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 71%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 39%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision negatively affect foot size?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11538, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 50%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 41%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be more likely to see large feet if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11539, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 11%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 57%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 25%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 66%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 86%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 39%.\nDoes my decision positively affect foot size through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11545, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 29%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 73%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 86%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 65%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 33%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect foot size?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11547, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 46%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 41%.\nWill taking the elevator increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11557, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 33%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 65%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of large feet is 39%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of large feet is 78%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 83%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 51%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect foot size through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11558, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how my decision correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to penguin mood.\nTo understand how my decision affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 33%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 36%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 41%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11564, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with foot size case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11567, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of large feet is 66%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of large feet is 59%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be less likely to see large feet if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11574, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 97%. The probability of not having a brother and smallpox survival is 1%. The probability of having a brother and smallpox survival is 52%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11576, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with smallpox survival case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with smallpox survival in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11577, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 39%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 46%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11578, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 39%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 46%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see smallpox survival if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11580, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 39%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 46%.\nDoes having a brother positively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11582, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 78%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 39%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 46%.\nIs smallpox survival less likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 49%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 45%.\nDoes having a brother negatively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 82%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 49%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 45%.\nIs smallpox survival more likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11590, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 71%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 65%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11599, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 55%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 68%.\nDoes having a brother negatively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11600, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 74%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 55%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 68%.\nIs smallpox survival less likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11602, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with smallpox survival case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with smallpox survival in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11604, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 75%. The probability of not having a brother and smallpox survival is 11%. The probability of having a brother and smallpox survival is 40%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 57%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 52%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11608, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 57%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 52%.\nDoes having a brother positively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11609, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 78%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 57%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 52%.\nIs smallpox survival less likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with smallpox survival case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with smallpox survival in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11614, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 31%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 41%.\nDoes having a brother positively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 39%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 44%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11618, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 94%. The probability of not having a brother and smallpox survival is 2%. The probability of having a brother and smallpox survival is 42%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11619, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 54%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 56%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11627, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 49%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 50%.\nDoes having a brother positively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11629, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 87%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 49%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 50%.\nIs smallpox survival less likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11630, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 87%. The probability of not having a brother and smallpox survival is 6%. The probability of having a brother and smallpox survival is 43%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 33%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 34%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11634, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 76%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 33%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 34%.\nIs smallpox survival more likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11637, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 50%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 59%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see smallpox survival if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11645, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 43%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 51%.\nDoes having a brother positively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11646, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 86%. The probability of not having a brother and smallpox survival is 6%. The probability of having a brother and smallpox survival is 43%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11649, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 45%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 58%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11650, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 45%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 58%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see smallpox survival if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11651, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 45%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 58%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see smallpox survival if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11652, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 45%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 58%.\nDoes having a brother negatively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11653, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 76%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 45%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 58%.\nIs smallpox survival more likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11659, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with smallpox survival in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vaccination reaction.\nTo understand how having a brother affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11662, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 71%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 56%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 49%.\nIs smallpox survival more likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11664, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with smallpox survival case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with smallpox survival in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11665, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with smallpox survival in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vaccination reaction.\nTo understand how having a brother affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11671, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 79%. The probability of not having a brother and smallpox survival is 8%. The probability of having a brother and smallpox survival is 29%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11674, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 65%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 73%.\nDoes having a brother positively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 36%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 56%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see smallpox survival if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11683, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 93%. The probability of not having a brother and smallpox survival is 4%. The probability of having a brother and smallpox survival is 58%.\nIs the chance of smallpox survival smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 44%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 36%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of smallpox survival?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11690, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 30%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 50%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see smallpox survival if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11692, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with smallpox survival case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with smallpox survival in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with smallpox survival in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vaccination reaction.\nTo understand how having a brother affects smallpox survival, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11697, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 58%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 69%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see smallpox survival if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11706, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 44%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 43%.\nDoes having a brother negatively affect smallpox survival through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11707, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 88%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 44%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 43%.\nIs smallpox survival more likely than smallpox death overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11710, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 42%. For people who have a brother, the probability of smallpox survival is 41%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see smallpox survival if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11723, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 57%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 46%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 88%.\nIs healthy heart less likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11730, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 26%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 49%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11738, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 82%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 47%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 88%.\nIs healthy heart more likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11741, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with heart condition case by case according to blood pressure. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with heart condition in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11745, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 48%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 20%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 77%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 46%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 37%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 60%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would having a sister positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11759, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 41%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 11%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 40%.\nIs healthy heart more likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11772, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 24%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 69%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11781, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 42%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 60%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11783, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 63%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 31%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 72%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 41%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 66%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 38%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11786, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 54%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 42%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 60%.\nIs healthy heart less likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11787, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with heart condition case by case according to blood pressure. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with heart condition in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11794, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 47%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 29%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 65%.\nIs healthy heart more likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11797, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 38%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 25%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be more likely to see healthy heart if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 51%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 0%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 48%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 18%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 26%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 75%.\nDoes having a sister negatively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11799, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 91%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 38%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 25%.\nIs healthy heart less likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11800, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 91%. The probability of not having a sister and healthy heart is 3%. The probability of having a sister and healthy heart is 23%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11802, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with heart condition in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to blood pressure.\nTo understand how having a sister affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11808, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with heart condition case by case according to blood pressure. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with heart condition in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11817, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 39%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 2%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 66%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 27%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 62%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 41%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would having a sister positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11840, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 21%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 55%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11844, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with heart condition in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to blood pressure.\nTo understand how having a sister affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11849, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 57%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 23%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 87%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 59%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 76%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 7%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11853, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 47%. The probability of not having a sister and healthy heart is 37%. The probability of having a sister and healthy heart is 35%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11855, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with heart condition in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to blood pressure.\nTo understand how having a sister affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11857, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 38%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 80%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11860, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 59%. The probability of not having a sister and healthy heart is 16%. The probability of having a sister and healthy heart is 47%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11862, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 50%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 56%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11867, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 99%. The probability of not having a sister and healthy heart is 1%. The probability of having a sister and healthy heart is 55%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11871, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 66%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 9%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 91%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 25%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 47%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 19%.\nDoes having a sister negatively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11873, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 57%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 39%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 79%.\nIs healthy heart more likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11878, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 80%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 31%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 89%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 25%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 12%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 82%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would having a sister positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11881, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with heart condition in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to blood pressure.\nTo understand how having a sister affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11882, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 58%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 6%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 25%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 3%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 16%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of thick lips increase when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11890, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how appearance correlates with lip thickness in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how appearance affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11897, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 55%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of thick lips is 17%. For people considered attractive, the probability of thick lips is 17%.\nIs thick lips more likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11900, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 58%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 10%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 62%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 9%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 29%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of thick lips increase when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how appearance correlates with lip thickness in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how appearance affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11910, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and thick lips is -0.06.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance does not affect thick lips?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11913, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with lip thickness case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with lip thickness in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11914, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and thick lips is -0.09.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance does not affect thick lips?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11915, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 49%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 9%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 29%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 6%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 21%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of thick lips decrease when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11916, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 47%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of thick lips is 19%. For people considered attractive, the probability of thick lips is 19%.\nIs thick lips less likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11920, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 48%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 3%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 9%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 2%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 6%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of thick lips increase when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11921, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 48%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 3%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 9%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 2%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 6%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of thick lips decrease when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11922, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 52%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of thick lips is 3%. For people considered attractive, the probability of thick lips is 3%.\nIs thick lips more likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11925, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and thick lips is -0.03.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance affects thick lips?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11927, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with lip thickness case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with lip thickness in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11928, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 60%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 12%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 31%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 9%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 23%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of thick lips increase when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11933, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how appearance correlates with lip thickness in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how appearance affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11939, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 43%. For people considered unattractive, the probability of thick lips is 10%. For people considered attractive, the probability of thick lips is 10%.\nIs thick lips more likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11942, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how appearance correlates with lip thickness in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how appearance affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11944, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 58%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 5%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 51%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 4%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 15%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of thick lips decrease when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and thick lips is -0.08.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance affects thick lips?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11953, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between attractive appearance and thick lips is -0.08.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that attractive appearance does not affect thick lips?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 48%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 1%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 3%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 0%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 2%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of thick lips increase when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11968, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how appearance correlates with lip thickness case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how appearance correlates with lip thickness in general.\nTo understand how appearance affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11969, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Appearance has a direct effect on fame. Lip thickness has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of attractive appearance is 60%. For people considered unattractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 2%. For people considered unattractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 9%. For people considered attractive and are not famous, the probability of thick lips is 0%. For people considered attractive and are famous, the probability of thick lips is 5%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of thick lips increase when attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 31%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of freckles is 53%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of freckles is 86%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11977, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 48%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and freckles is 28%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and freckles is 37%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drug taken affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11979, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 59%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 67%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 26%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 69%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11987, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 5%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of freckles is 5%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of freckles is 32%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11990, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 59%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of freckles is 54%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of freckles is 41%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 11991, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 59%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and freckles is 22%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and freckles is 24%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 11998, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 45%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 48%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 51%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 76%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 36%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of freckles is 54%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of freckles is 46%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12008, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 36%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and freckles is 35%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and freckles is 16%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12014, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drug taken affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12018, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 53%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of freckles is 64%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of freckles is 57%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12019, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 53%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and freckles is 30%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and freckles is 30%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12020, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drug taken affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12022, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 48%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 40%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 16%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 67%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12023, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 37%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and freckles is 32%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and freckles is 13%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12027, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 18%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of freckles is 10%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of freckles is 9%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12028, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 61%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 63%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 39%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 63%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12030, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 52%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of freckles is 57%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of freckles is 67%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12031, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 52%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and freckles is 28%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and freckles is 34%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 19%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 14%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 36%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 83%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12039, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how drug taken correlates with freckles case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how drug taken affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12044, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drug taken affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12048, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how drug taken correlates with freckles case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how drug taken affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12052, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how drug taken correlates with freckles case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how drug taken affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12053, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 50%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and freckles is 31%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and freckles is 26%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12055, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 19%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 26%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 26%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 59%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12058, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drug taken correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drug taken affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12063, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 30%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of freckles is 29%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 18%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 59%.\nWill taking of all assigned drugs decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12064, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 22%. For patients that have not taken any drugs, the probability of freckles is 31%. For patients that have taken all assigned drugs, the probability of freckles is 27%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12066, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of taking of all assigned drugs is 22%. The probability of not taking of any assigned drugs and freckles is 24%. The probability of taking of all assigned drugs and freckles is 6%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12069, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 13%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 58%.\nDoes education level positively affect black hair through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12070, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 2%. For people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 13%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 58%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12073, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 43%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 81%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12074, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 43%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 81%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see black hair if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12077, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 45%. For people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 43%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 81%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12078, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 61%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 80%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with black hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12088, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 26%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 40%.\nDoes education level positively affect black hair through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12089, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 26%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 40%.\nDoes education level negatively affect black hair through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12091, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 60%. For people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 26%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 40%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12093, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with black hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12094, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 11%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 53%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12102, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 37%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 45%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see black hair if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12104, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 13%. For people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 37%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 45%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12111, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with black hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 79%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 89%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12115, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 16%. The probability of high school degree or lower and black hair is 66%. The probability of college degree or higher and black hair is 15%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12116, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 43%. For people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 31%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 56%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12121, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 45%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 61%.\nDoes education level positively affect black hair through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12130, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 52%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 67%.\nDoes education level negatively affect black hair through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12131, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with black hair case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with black hair in general.\nTo understand how education level affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12135, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with black hair case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with black hair in general.\nTo understand how education level affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12136, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with black hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how education level affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12140, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 6%. The probability of high school degree or lower and black hair is 25%. The probability of college degree or higher and black hair is 3%.\nIs the chance of black hair smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12141, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with black hair case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with black hair in general.\nTo understand how education level affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12144, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 43%. For people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 42%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 69%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12145, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 43%. The probability of high school degree or lower and black hair is 24%. The probability of college degree or higher and black hair is 30%.\nIs the chance of black hair smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 40%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 61%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12151, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 45%. The probability of high school degree or lower and black hair is 22%. The probability of college degree or higher and black hair is 28%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12152, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 47%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 66%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12153, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 47%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 66%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see black hair if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12157, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 45%. For people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 31%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 40%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12158, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 45%. The probability of high school degree or lower and black hair is 17%. The probability of college degree or higher and black hair is 18%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12159, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 42%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 63%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12161, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 42%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 63%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see black hair if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 42%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 63%.\nDoes education level positively affect black hair through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12165, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 19%. For people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 42%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 63%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 19%. The probability of high school degree or lower and black hair is 34%. The probability of college degree or higher and black hair is 12%.\nIs the chance of black hair smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12167, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 54%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 83%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12170, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 60%. For people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 54%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 83%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12171, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 60%. The probability of high school degree or lower and black hair is 22%. The probability of college degree or higher and black hair is 50%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12174, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 55%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 87%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12182, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 7%. The probability of high school degree or lower and black hair is 50%. The probability of college degree or higher and black hair is 5%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12187, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 47%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 61%.\nFor people with a college degree or higher, would it be less likely to see black hair if the person had not had a college degree?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12189, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 53%. For people without a college degree, the probability of black hair is 47%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of black hair is 61%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12190, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 53%. The probability of high school degree or lower and black hair is 22%. The probability of college degree or higher and black hair is 32%.\nIs the chance of black hair smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12196, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 35%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 25%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 94%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12197, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 35%. The probability of not drinking coffee and high salary is 16%. The probability of drinking coffee and high salary is 33%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12201, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12208, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with salary case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12210, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 32%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 34%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 63%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12221, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 47%. The probability of not drinking coffee and high salary is 19%. The probability of drinking coffee and high salary is 35%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12224, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 55%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 71%. For people living far from a college, the probability of drinking coffee is 36%. For people living close to a college, the probability of drinking coffee is 88%.\nWill drinking coffee increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12227, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of high salary is 22%. For people living close to a college, the probability of high salary is 42%. For people living far from a college, the probability of drinking coffee is 39%. For people living close to a college, the probability of drinking coffee is 78%.\nWill drinking coffee increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 59%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 75%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 99%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12242, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 59%. The probability of not drinking coffee and high salary is 31%. The probability of drinking coffee and high salary is 58%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12243, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12244, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with salary case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12252, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 61%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 27%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 58%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12253, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with salary case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12256, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 47%. The probability of not drinking coffee and high salary is 18%. The probability of drinking coffee and high salary is 41%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12258, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 36%. The probability of not drinking coffee and high salary is 12%. The probability of drinking coffee and high salary is 23%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12260, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 57%. The probability of not drinking coffee and high salary is 11%. The probability of drinking coffee and high salary is 34%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12272, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 46%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 38%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 88%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12273, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 46%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 38%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 88%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with salary case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 47%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 47%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 90%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12283, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 30%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 34%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 64%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12286, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 51%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 32%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of high salary is 64%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12287, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12288, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 45%. The probability of not drinking coffee and high salary is 27%. The probability of drinking coffee and high salary is 42%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12296, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 18%. For students who do not listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 6%. For students who do not listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 18%. For students who listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 4%. For students who listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 14%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12300, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between listening to jazz and being hard-working is -0.09.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that listening to jazz affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12307, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 16%. For students who do not listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 9%. For students who listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 9%.\nIs being hard-working more likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12309, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how listening to jazz correlates with effort in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how listening to jazz affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12313, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 12%. For students who do not listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 6%. For students who listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 6%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12314, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between listening to jazz and being hard-working is -0.16.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that listening to jazz affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12324, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how listening to jazz correlates with effort in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how listening to jazz affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12327, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 53%. For students who do not listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 30%. For students who do not listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 78%. For students who listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 15%. For students who listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 55%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12331, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 11%. For students who do not listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 4%. For students who do not listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 12%. For students who listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 2%. For students who listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 10%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12334, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how listening to jazz correlates with effort case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how listening to jazz correlates with effort in general.\nTo understand how listening to jazz affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12339, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 10%. For students who do not listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 8%. For students who do not listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 23%. For students who listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 6%. For students who listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 17%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working decrease when listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12341, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how listening to jazz correlates with effort in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how listening to jazz affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12346, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how listening to jazz correlates with effort in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how listening to jazz affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12347, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between listening to jazz and being hard-working is -0.15.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that listening to jazz affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 47%. For students who do not listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 41%. For students who do not listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 76%. For students who listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 34%. For students who listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 61%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 47%. For students who do not listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 41%. For students who do not listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 76%. For students who listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 34%. For students who listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 61%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working decrease when listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12351, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how listening to jazz correlates with effort in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how listening to jazz affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12354, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 47%. For students who do not listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 51%. For students who listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 51%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12355, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between listening to jazz and being hard-working is -0.06.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that listening to jazz affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12356, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 8%. For students who do not listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 12%. For students who listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 12%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 47%. For students who do not listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 49%. For students who listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 49%.\nIs being hard-working less likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12359, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between listening to jazz and being hard-working is -0.01.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that listening to jazz affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 47%. For students who do not listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 57%. For students who listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 57%.\nIs being hard-working more likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12365, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 47%. For students who do not listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 43%. For students who do not listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 91%. For students who listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 21%. For students who listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 66%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working decrease when listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12366, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how listening to jazz correlates with effort case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how listening to jazz correlates with effort in general.\nTo understand how listening to jazz affects effort, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12367, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between listening to jazz and being hard-working is -0.66.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that listening to jazz affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between listening to jazz and being hard-working is -0.00.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that listening to jazz affects being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12372, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 2%. For students who do not listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 5%. For students who do not listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 20%. For students who listen to jazz and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 4%. For students who listen to jazz and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of being hard-working is 11%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of being hard-working increase when listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12374, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 44%. For students who do not listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 54%. For students who listen to jazz, the probability of being hard-working is 54%.\nIs being hard-working more likely than being lazy overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12377, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Effort has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between listening to jazz and being hard-working is -0.15.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that listening to jazz does not affect being hard-working?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12393, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 37%. For students who cannot swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 65%. For students who can swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 71%. For students who can swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 95%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of studying hard is 24%. For students who can swim, the probability of studying hard is 61%.\nDoes ability to swim positively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12406, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 32%. For students who cannot swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 56%. For students who can swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 53%. For students who can swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 86%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of studying hard is 10%. For students who can swim, the probability of studying hard is 85%.\nDoes ability to swim negatively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12408, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of being able to swim is 45%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 34%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 81%.\nIs high exam score less likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12411, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 20%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 56%.\nWill being able to swim decrease the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12414, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to swim correlates with exam score case by case according to studying habit. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to swim correlates with exam score in general.\nTo understand how ability to swim affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12416, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 26%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 72%.\nFor students who can swim, would it be more likely to see high exam score if the student could swim?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12418, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 19%. For students who cannot swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 44%. For students who can swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 48%. For students who can swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 77%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of studying hard is 30%. For students who can swim, the probability of studying hard is 86%.\nDoes ability to swim negatively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 23%. For students who cannot swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 45%. For students who can swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 52%. For students who can swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 80%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of studying hard is 25%. For students who can swim, the probability of studying hard is 48%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through studying habit, would ability to swim positively affect exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12427, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to swim correlates with exam score case by case according to studying habit. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to swim correlates with exam score in general.\nTo understand how ability to swim affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12428, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to swim correlates with exam score in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to studying habit.\nTo understand how ability to swim affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12432, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 30%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 64%.\nWill being able to swim increase the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12433, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 30%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 64%.\nFor students who can swim, would it be more likely to see high exam score if the student could swim?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12437, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 17%. For students who cannot swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 39%. For students who can swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 42%. For students who can swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 68%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of studying hard is 24%. For students who can swim, the probability of studying hard is 63%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through studying habit, would ability to swim negatively affect exam score?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12447, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of being able to swim is 47%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 25%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 75%.\nIs high exam score less likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 31%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 69%.\nWill being able to swim decrease the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12452, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 25%. For students who cannot swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 50%. For students who can swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 49%. For students who can swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 77%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of studying hard is 24%. For students who can swim, the probability of studying hard is 72%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through studying habit, would ability to swim positively affect exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12454, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of being able to swim is 10%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 31%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 69%.\nIs high exam score more likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12460, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of being able to swim is 54%. The probability of not being able to swim and high exam score is 21%. The probability of being able to swim and high exam score is 48%.\nIs the chance of high exam score smaller when observing being able to swim?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12461, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to swim correlates with exam score in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to studying habit.\nTo understand how ability to swim affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 13%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 73%.\nWill being able to swim decrease the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12465, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 5%. For students who cannot swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 45%. For students who can swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 28%. For students who can swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 77%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of studying hard is 20%. For students who can swim, the probability of studying hard is 92%.\nDoes ability to swim positively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12466, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to swim correlates with exam score case by case according to studying habit. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to swim correlates with exam score in general.\nTo understand how ability to swim affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12469, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 26%. For students who cannot swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 55%. For students who can swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 71%. For students who can swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 95%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of studying hard is 20%. For students who can swim, the probability of studying hard is 72%.\nDoes ability to swim positively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12472, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of being able to swim is 49%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 32%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 88%.\nIs high exam score more likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12474, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to swim correlates with exam score in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to studying habit.\nTo understand how ability to swim affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12481, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of being able to swim is 49%. The probability of not being able to swim and high exam score is 19%. The probability of being able to swim and high exam score is 39%.\nIs the chance of high exam score larger when observing being able to swim?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12483, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 34%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 68%.\nWill being able to swim increase the chance of high exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12485, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 23%. For students who cannot swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 51%. For students who can swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 50%. For students who can swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 78%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of studying hard is 40%. For students who can swim, the probability of studying hard is 63%.\nDoes ability to swim positively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12486, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of being able to swim is 6%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 34%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 68%.\nIs high exam score less likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12487, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of being able to swim is 6%. The probability of not being able to swim and high exam score is 32%. The probability of being able to swim and high exam score is 4%.\nIs the chance of high exam score smaller when observing being able to swim?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12488, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to swim correlates with exam score case by case according to studying habit. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to swim correlates with exam score in general.\nTo understand how ability to swim affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12490, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 32%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 76%.\nFor students who can swim, would it be more likely to see high exam score if the student could swim?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12491, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 24%. For students who cannot swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 52%. For students who can swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 55%. For students who can swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 85%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of studying hard is 30%. For students who can swim, the probability of studying hard is 69%.\nDoes ability to swim positively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 15%. For students who cannot swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 51%. For students who can swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 61%. For students who can swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 86%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of studying hard is 4%. For students who can swim, the probability of studying hard is 97%.\nDoes ability to swim negatively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12511, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of being able to swim is 15%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of high exam score is 16%. For students who can swim, the probability of high exam score is 85%.\nIs high exam score less likely than low exam score overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12513, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to swim correlates with exam score case by case according to studying habit. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to swim correlates with exam score in general.\nTo understand how ability to swim affects exam score, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12520, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 0%. For students who cannot swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 31%. For students who can swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 22%. For students who can swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 62%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of studying hard is 19%. For students who can swim, the probability of studying hard is 67%.\nDoes ability to swim positively affect exam score through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12529, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nFor students who cannot swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 36%. For students who cannot swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 64%. For students who can swim and do not study hard, the probability of high exam score is 71%. For students who can swim and study hard, the probability of high exam score is 93%. For students who cannot swim, the probability of studying hard is 11%. For students who can swim, the probability of studying hard is 68%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through studying habit, would ability to swim positively affect exam score?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of being able to swim is 8%. The probability of not being able to swim and high exam score is 36%. The probability of being able to swim and high exam score is 7%.\nIs the chance of high exam score larger when observing being able to swim?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12536, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nThe overall probability of being able to swim is 45%. The probability of not being able to swim and high exam score is 12%. The probability of being able to swim and high exam score is 39%.\nIs the chance of high exam score larger when observing being able to swim?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12540, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 48%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 36%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12548, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 45%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 80%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 71%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts more likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12550, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how gender affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12554, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 55%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 64%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 49%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12555, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with peanut allergy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12561, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 41%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 37%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 29%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 19%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12571, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 46%. The probability of non-male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 29%. The probability of male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 27%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12575, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 92%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 61%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 57%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 80%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 83%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 18%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect peanut allergy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12583, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 53%. The probability of non-male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 26%. The probability of male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 26%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 53%. The probability of non-male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 26%. The probability of male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 26%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with peanut allergy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12592, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 44%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 52%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12600, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 46%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 67%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12602, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 42%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 68%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 45%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 78%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 16%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 65%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect peanut allergy?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12603, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 44%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 46%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 67%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 44%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 15%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 53%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 5%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 34%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 56%.\nDoes gender positively affect peanut allergy through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12615, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 41%. The probability of non-male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 17%. The probability of male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 20%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 42%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 25%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 47%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts more likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12626, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 51%. The probability of non-male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 23%. The probability of male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 32%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12631, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 54%. The probability of non-male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 22%. The probability of male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 13%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 40%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 66%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12641, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 58%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 26%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 73%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 32%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 56%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 15%.\nDoes gender positively affect peanut allergy through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12650, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with peanut allergy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12669, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 51%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 21%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 56%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 10%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 48%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 67%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect peanut allergy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12671, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 47%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 37%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 25%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts more likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12673, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 47%. The probability of non-male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 19%. The probability of male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 12%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12676, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 72%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 84%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12679, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 75%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 60%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 64%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 93%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 23%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 71%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect peanut allergy?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12680, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 43%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 72%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 84%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts more likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12682, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 61%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 39%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12685, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 50%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 63%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 34%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 65%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 84%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 17%.\nDoes gender positively affect peanut allergy through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 75%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 37%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 72%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 21%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 85%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 49%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect peanut allergy?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 41%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 43%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 47%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12691, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 57%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 99%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 57%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 52%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 69%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 52%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect peanut allergy?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12692, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 48%. The probability of non-male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 44%. The probability of male gender and being allergic to peanuts is 26%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 84%. The probability of non-male gender and brown eyes is 12%. The probability of male gender and brown eyes is 57%.\nIs the chance of brown eyes larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12698, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 91%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 47%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 91%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 50%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 53%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 16%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 68%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 27%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 82%.\nDoes gender positively affect brown eyes through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12704, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 64%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 39%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 65%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 39%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 51%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 21%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 78%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 47%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 93%.\nDoes gender positively affect brown eyes through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12707, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with brown eyes case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with brown eyes in general.\nTo understand how gender affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12708, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with brown eyes in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of brown eyes is 75%. For individuals who are male, the probability of brown eyes is 82%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see brown eyes if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12722, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 81%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 40%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 86%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 30%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 53%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 13%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 47%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 5%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 94%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12725, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of brown eyes is 50%. For individuals who are male, the probability of brown eyes is 42%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see brown eyes if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 75%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 39%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 67%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 34%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 42%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 1%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 48%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 5%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 97%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12738, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 84%. The probability of non-male gender and brown eyes is 12%. The probability of male gender and brown eyes is 54%.\nIs the chance of brown eyes larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12739, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 84%. The probability of non-male gender and brown eyes is 12%. The probability of male gender and brown eyes is 54%.\nIs the chance of brown eyes smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12742, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 53%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 17%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 55%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 19%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 47%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 18%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 75%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 49%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 92%.\nDoes gender positively affect brown eyes through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12754, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 41%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 10%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 45%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 6%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 62%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 38%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 67%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 35%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 96%.\nDoes gender positively affect brown eyes through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12755, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 83%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of brown eyes is 29%. For individuals who are male, the probability of brown eyes is 31%.\nIs brown eyes more likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12760, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 50%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of brown eyes is 42%. For individuals who are male, the probability of brown eyes is 49%.\nIs brown eyes less likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12762, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with brown eyes case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with brown eyes in general.\nTo understand how gender affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12764, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of brown eyes is 50%. For individuals who are male, the probability of brown eyes is 35%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see brown eyes if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12770, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of brown eyes is 74%. For individuals who are male, the probability of brown eyes is 62%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see brown eyes if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12771, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 83%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 33%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 84%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 41%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 63%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 6%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 93%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 42%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 81%.\nDoes gender positively affect brown eyes through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 55%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of brown eyes is 58%. For individuals who are male, the probability of brown eyes is 57%.\nIs brown eyes more likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12785, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with brown eyes case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with brown eyes in general.\nTo understand how gender affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 69%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 36%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 78%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 28%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 75%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 37%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 79%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 50%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 93%.\nDoes gender negatively affect brown eyes through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12802, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of brown eyes is 54%. For individuals who are male, the probability of brown eyes is 60%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12809, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of brown eyes is 56%. For individuals who are male, the probability of brown eyes is 47%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see brown eyes if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12817, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with brown eyes in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12824, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 56%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 27%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 65%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 30%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 53%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 5%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 61%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 17%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 97%.\nDoes gender negatively affect brown eyes through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12825, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 56%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 27%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 65%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 30%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 53%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 5%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 61%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 17%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 97%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12835, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of brown eyes is 51%. For individuals who are male, the probability of brown eyes is 31%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see brown eyes if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12837, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 54%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 14%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 42%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 9%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 34%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 6%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 66%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 30%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 88%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12838, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 84%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of brown eyes is 51%. For individuals who are male, the probability of brown eyes is 31%.\nIs brown eyes more likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12840, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of brown eyes is 77%. For individuals who are male, the probability of brown eyes is 68%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12841, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of brown eyes is 77%. For individuals who are male, the probability of brown eyes is 68%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see brown eyes if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12846, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 56%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 14%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 60%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 19%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 52%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 15%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 78%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 41%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 89%.\nDoes gender positively affect brown eyes through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12850, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 76%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 47%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 76%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 45%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 76%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 27%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 61%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 36%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 96%.\nDoes gender positively affect brown eyes through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12852, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 76%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 47%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 76%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of brown eyes is 45%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 76%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 27%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 61%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 36%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 96%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12857, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 16%. For individuals who have not visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 60%. For individuals who have visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 22%. For individuals who have visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 56%. For individuals who have not visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 30%. For individuals who have not visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 34%. For individuals who have visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 58%. For individuals who have visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 67%. The overall probability of high skill level is 9%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would having visited England positively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12862, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 25%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 33%.\nWill having visited England decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12863, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 25%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 33%.\nFor individuals who have visited England, would it be more likely to see high salary if the individual had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12867, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12877, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to occupation.\nTo understand how having visited England affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 27%. For individuals who have not visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 63%. For individuals who have visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 33%. For individuals who have visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 63%. For individuals who have not visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 32%. For individuals who have not visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 44%. For individuals who have visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 75%. For individuals who have visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 79%. The overall probability of high skill level is 8%.\nDoes having visited England positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12885, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 62%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 72%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 62%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 72%.\nFor individuals who have visited England, would it be more likely to see high salary if the individual had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12888, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 50%. For individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 62%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 72%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12908, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 56%. For individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 63%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 66%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12910, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 56%. The probability of not having visited England and high salary is 28%. The probability of having visited England and high salary is 37%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12918, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 22%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 62%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12919, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 22%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 62%.\nWill having visited England decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12920, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 22%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 62%.\nFor individuals who have visited England, would it be less likely to see high salary if the individual had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12922, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 15%. For individuals who have not visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 40%. For individuals who have visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 43%. For individuals who have visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 73%. For individuals who have not visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 29%. For individuals who have not visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 19%. For individuals who have visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 61%. For individuals who have visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 72%. The overall probability of high skill level is 6%.\nDoes having visited England negatively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12924, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 58%. For individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 22%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 62%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 37%. For individuals who have not visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 74%. For individuals who have visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 44%. For individuals who have visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 70%. For individuals who have not visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 6%. For individuals who have not visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 26%. For individuals who have visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 60%. For individuals who have visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 64%. The overall probability of high skill level is 8%.\nDoes having visited England positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12938, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to occupation.\nTo understand how having visited England affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12946, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 29%. For individuals who have not visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 57%. For individuals who have visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 53%. For individuals who have visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 84%. For individuals who have not visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 13%. For individuals who have not visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 19%. For individuals who have visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 52%. For individuals who have visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 58%. The overall probability of high skill level is 20%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would having visited England negatively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12947, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 42%. For individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 33%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 70%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12950, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 36%. For individuals who have not visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 61%. For individuals who have visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 59%. For individuals who have visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 83%. For individuals who have not visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 68%. For individuals who have not visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 45%. For individuals who have visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 79%. For individuals who have visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 27%. The overall probability of high skill level is 3%.\nDoes having visited England positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12955, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 48%. For individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 53%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 78%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12968, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 60%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 72%.\nFor individuals who have visited England, would it be less likely to see high salary if the individual had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12970, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 45%. For individuals who have not visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 88%. For individuals who have visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 51%. For individuals who have visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 77%. For individuals who have not visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 32%. For individuals who have not visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 43%. For individuals who have visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 80%. For individuals who have visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 73%. The overall probability of high skill level is 8%.\nDoes having visited England negatively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 14%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 55%.\nWill having visited England decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12976, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 14%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 55%.\nFor individuals who have visited England, would it be more likely to see high salary if the individual had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 12978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 6%. For individuals who have not visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 40%. For individuals who have visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 36%. For individuals who have visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 68%. For individuals who have not visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 26%. For individuals who have not visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 11%. For individuals who have visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 57%. For individuals who have visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 67%. The overall probability of high skill level is 19%.\nDoes having visited England positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 56%. The probability of not having visited England and high salary is 6%. The probability of having visited England and high salary is 31%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12989, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 46%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 73%.\nFor individuals who have visited England, would it be less likely to see high salary if the individual had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 12993, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 8%. For individuals who have not visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 41%. For individuals who have visited England and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 8%. For individuals who have visited England and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 47%. For individuals who have not visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 27%. For individuals who have not visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 56%. For individuals who have visited England and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 48%. For individuals who have visited England and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 81%. The overall probability of high skill level is 18%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would having visited England positively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 43%. For individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 21%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 61%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13012, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 31%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 65%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13013, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who have not visited England, the probability of high salary is 31%. For individuals who have visited England, the probability of high salary is 65%.\nWill having visited England decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13019, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to occupation.\nTo understand how having visited England affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13020, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and black hair is 0.01.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues affects black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13024, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 5%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 14%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 14%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13026, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 58%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 13%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 13%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13035, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 52%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 7%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 54%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 10%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 35%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of black hair increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13037, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and black hair is -0.26.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues affects black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13039, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how respiratory issues correlates with black hair case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with black hair in general.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13046, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 41%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 6%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 6%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13051, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with black hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hospitalization status.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13052, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and black hair is 0.16.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues does not affect black hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13054, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 8%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 7%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 59%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 3%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 26%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of black hair decrease when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13057, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with black hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hospitalization status.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13067, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how respiratory issues correlates with black hair case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with black hair in general.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13069, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 50%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 4%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 12%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 3%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 10%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of black hair increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and black hair is -0.18.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues does not affect black hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13074, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 12%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 3%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 10%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 1%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 9%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of black hair decrease when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13075, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 47%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 17%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 17%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13077, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with black hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hospitalization status.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 4%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 16%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 16%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13086, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and black hair is -0.08.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues affects black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13087, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and black hair is -0.08.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues does not affect black hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13088, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 57%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 18%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 18%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13094, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how respiratory issues correlates with black hair case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how respiratory issues correlates with black hair in general.\nTo understand how respiratory issues affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13096, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between respiratory issues and black hair is -0.03.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that respiratory issues affects black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 51%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 0%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 5%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 1%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 5%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of black hair decrease when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13104, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 49%. For people with no respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 19%. For people with respiratory issues, the probability of black hair is 19%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13106, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 49%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 15%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 31%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 7%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 27%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of black hair increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13116, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Respiratory issues has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Black hair has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of respiratory issues is 40%. For people with no respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 8%. For people with no respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 24%. For people with respiratory issues and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 5%. For people with respiratory issues and hospitalized individuals, the probability of black hair is 18%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of black hair increase when respiratory issues?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13121, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 43%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of freckles is 50%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of freckles is 50%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13122, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 43%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of freckles is 50%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of freckles is 50%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13124, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and freckles is -0.05.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness affects freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look at how personality correlates with freckles case by case according to relationship status. Method 2: We look directly at how personality correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how personality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13130, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 56%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of freckles is 7%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of freckles is 7%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13138, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 86%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of freckles is 60%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of freckles is 60%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13139, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look at how personality correlates with freckles case by case according to relationship status. Method 2: We look directly at how personality correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how personality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13143, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how personality correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to relationship status.\nTo understand how personality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13145, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look at how personality correlates with freckles case by case according to relationship status. Method 2: We look directly at how personality correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how personality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13146, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and freckles is -0.04.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness affects freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 85%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of freckles is 9%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of freckles is 9%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 94%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of freckles is 42%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of freckles is 42%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13163, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 94%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of freckles is 42%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of freckles is 42%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13164, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 94%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of freckles is 31%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of freckles is 62%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of freckles is 25%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of freckles is 55%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of freckles decrease when kindness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13169, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look at how personality correlates with freckles case by case according to relationship status. Method 2: We look directly at how personality correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how personality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13172, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 45%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of freckles is 49%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of freckles is 49%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13175, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and freckles is -0.05.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness does not affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13182, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 49%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of freckles is 12%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of freckles is 7%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of freckles is 6%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of freckles is 12%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of freckles decrease when kindness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13184, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and freckles is 0.14.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness does not affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13185, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 47%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of freckles is 20%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of freckles is 11%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of freckles is 2%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of freckles is 21%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of freckles increase when kindness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13188, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 48%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of freckles is 5%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of freckles is 15%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of freckles is 4%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of freckles is 15%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of freckles increase when kindness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13190, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 50%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of freckles is 6%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of freckles is 6%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13193, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and freckles is -0.01.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness does not affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13202, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 52%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of freckles is 33%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of freckles is 82%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of freckles is 39%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of freckles is 72%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of freckles increase when kindness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13204, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 45%. For people with mean personalities, the probability of freckles is 51%. For people with kind personalities, the probability of freckles is 51%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13209, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how personality correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to relationship status.\nTo understand how personality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13210, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between kindness and freckles is -0.08.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that kindness does not affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13211, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Personality has a direct effect on relationship status. Freckles has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of kindness is 85%. For people with mean personalities and single people, the probability of freckles is 38%. For people with mean personalities and in a relationship, the probability of freckles is 71%. For people with kind personalities and single people, the probability of freckles is 32%. For people with kind personalities and in a relationship, the probability of freckles is 57%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of freckles decrease when kindness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13216, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 34%. For children who do not like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 37%. For children who like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 68%. For children who like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 65%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 4%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 9%. For children who like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 79%. For children who like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 56%. The overall probability of confounder active is 47%.\nDoes liking spicy food positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13220, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 42%. For children who like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 56%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13222, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 42%. For children who like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 56%.\nFor children who like spicy food, would it be less likely to see intelligent child if the child did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13223, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 54%. For children who do not like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 26%. For children who like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 79%. For children who like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 51%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 37%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 46%. For children who like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 76%. For children who like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 85%. The overall probability of confounder active is 48%.\nDoes liking spicy food positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13224, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 54%. For children who do not like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 26%. For children who like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 79%. For children who like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 51%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 37%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 46%. For children who like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 76%. For children who like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 85%. The overall probability of confounder active is 48%.\nDoes liking spicy food negatively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13225, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 54%. For children who do not like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 26%. For children who like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 79%. For children who like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 51%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 37%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 46%. For children who like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 76%. For children who like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 85%. The overall probability of confounder active is 48%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would liking spicy food negatively affect child's intelligence?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13228, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 31%. For children who like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 68%.\nFor children who like spicy food, would it be more likely to see intelligent child if the child did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 35%. For children who like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 75%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 32%. For children who like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 80%.\nFor children who like spicy food, would it be less likely to see intelligent child if the child did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13243, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 47%. The probability of not liking spicy food and intelligent child is 17%. The probability of liking spicy food and intelligent child is 38%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13244, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how liking spicy food correlates with child's intelligence case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with child's intelligence in general.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13247, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 38%. For children who do not like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 1%. For children who like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 61%. For children who like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 31%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 3%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 11%. For children who like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 70%. For children who like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 91%. The overall probability of confounder active is 57%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would liking spicy food negatively affect child's intelligence?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13256, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 50%. For children who do not like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 50%. For children who like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 86%. For children who like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 86%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 72%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 60%. For children who like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 27%. For children who like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 37%. The overall probability of confounder active is 60%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would liking spicy food positively affect child's intelligence?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13271, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 34%. For children who do not like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 30%. For children who like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 73%. For children who like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 64%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 62%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 80%. For children who like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 48%. For children who like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 64%. The overall probability of confounder active is 56%.\nDoes liking spicy food negatively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13272, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 34%. For children who do not like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 30%. For children who like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 73%. For children who like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 64%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 62%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 80%. For children who like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 48%. For children who like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 64%. The overall probability of confounder active is 56%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would liking spicy food negatively affect child's intelligence?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13273, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 51%. The probability of not liking spicy food and intelligent child is 15%. The probability of liking spicy food and intelligent child is 35%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13278, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 36%. For children who do not like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 39%. For children who like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 68%. For children who like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 67%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 56%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 55%. For children who like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 8%. For children who like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 24%. The overall probability of confounder active is 42%.\nDoes liking spicy food positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13288, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 46%. For children who do not like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 41%. For children who like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 66%.\nIs intelligent child less likely than unintelligent child overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13289, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with child's intelligence in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to parents' social status.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13292, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 19%. For children who do not like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 14%. For children who like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 57%. For children who like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 46%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 59%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 45%. For children who like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 27%. For children who like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 60%. The overall probability of confounder active is 55%.\nDoes liking spicy food negatively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13299, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 46%. For children who do not like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 35%. For children who like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 70%.\nIs intelligent child more likely than unintelligent child overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13302, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 35%. For children who like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 77%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13306, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how liking spicy food correlates with child's intelligence case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with child's intelligence in general.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with child's intelligence in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to parents' social status.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects child's intelligence, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13317, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 30%. For children who do not like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 24%. For children who like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 61%. For children who like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 65%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 53%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 48%. For children who like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 64%. For children who like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 57%. The overall probability of confounder active is 48%.\nDoes liking spicy food negatively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13333, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 49%. For children who like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 84%.\nFor children who like spicy food, would it be more likely to see intelligent child if the child did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13345, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 28%. For children who like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 46%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 37%. For children who do not like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 3%. For children who like spicy food and with low parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 65%. For children who like spicy food and with high parental social status, the probability of intelligent child is 35%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 25%. For children who do not like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 29%. For children who like spicy food and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 59%. For children who like spicy food and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 66%. The overall probability of confounder active is 44%.\nDoes liking spicy food positively affect child's intelligence through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13364, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 51%. The probability of not liking spicy food and intelligent child is 18%. The probability of liking spicy food and intelligent child is 34%.\nIs the chance of intelligent child larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13367, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children who do not like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 31%. For children who like spicy food, the probability of intelligent child is 62%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of intelligent child?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13377, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 36%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 74%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 46%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 69%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 78%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 21%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lactose intolerance through effort?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13379, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 36%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 74%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 46%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 69%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 78%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 21%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking negatively affect lactose intolerance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13382, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 5%. The probability of nonsmoking and being lactose intolerant is 74%. The probability of smoking and being lactose intolerant is 2%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13396, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 3%. The probability of nonsmoking and being lactose intolerant is 30%. The probability of smoking and being lactose intolerant is 2%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13397, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 3%. The probability of nonsmoking and being lactose intolerant is 30%. The probability of smoking and being lactose intolerant is 2%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13406, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 68%. For smokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 31%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13417, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 76%. For smokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 22%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see being lactose intolerant if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13418, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 53%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 85%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 21%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 51%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 72%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 1%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lactose intolerance through effort?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13419, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 9%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 76%. For smokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 22%.\nIs being lactose intolerant more likely than not being lactose intolerant overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13427, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 64%. For smokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 19%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13438, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 86%. For smokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 26%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see being lactose intolerant if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13440, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 51%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 89%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 11%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 34%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 91%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 63%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking positively affect lactose intolerance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13445, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to effort.\nTo understand how smoking affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13448, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 38%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 87%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 2%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 52%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 41%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 92%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect lactose intolerance through effort?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 44%. For smokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 62%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see being lactose intolerant if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13456, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 26%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 66%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 9%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 62%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 44%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 100%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking negatively affect lactose intolerance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13461, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 19%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 56%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 34%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 68%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 69%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 24%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lactose intolerance through effort?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 12%. The probability of nonsmoking and being lactose intolerant is 39%. The probability of smoking and being lactose intolerant is 5%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13472, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 63%. For smokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 42%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see being lactose intolerant if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13475, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 3%. The probability of nonsmoking and being lactose intolerant is 61%. The probability of smoking and being lactose intolerant is 1%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13477, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to effort.\nTo understand how smoking affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13479, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 52%. For smokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 43%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see being lactose intolerant if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13483, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 79%. For smokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 48%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13484, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 79%. For smokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 48%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see being lactose intolerant if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13491, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 17%. The probability of nonsmoking and being lactose intolerant is 50%. The probability of smoking and being lactose intolerant is 2%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13494, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 57%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 95%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 34%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 63%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 65%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 28%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking negatively affect lactose intolerance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13499, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 36%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 84%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 4%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 64%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 0%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 18%.\nDoes smoking positively affect lactose intolerance through effort?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13504, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 60%. For smokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 51%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13509, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 77%. For smokers, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 37%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13526, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 72%. For people who do not speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 47%. For people who speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 48%. For people who speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 22%. For people who do not speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 30%. For people who do not speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 15%. For people who speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 61%. For people who speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 60%. The overall probability of smoker is 17%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would ability to speak english negatively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 71%. For people who do not speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 46%. For people who speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 40%. For people who speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 22%. For people who do not speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 49%. For people who do not speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 55%. For people who speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 94%. For people who speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 76%. The overall probability of smoker is 52%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would ability to speak english positively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13537, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with lifespan in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to diabetes.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13538, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 68%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 37%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13541, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 8%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 68%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 37%.\nIs long lifespan more likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 8%. The probability of not speaking english and long lifespan is 63%. The probability of speaking english and long lifespan is 3%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan larger when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13543, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 8%. The probability of not speaking english and long lifespan is 63%. The probability of speaking english and long lifespan is 3%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan smaller when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13545, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with lifespan in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to diabetes.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13546, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 74%. For people who do not speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 50%. For people who speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 52%. For people who speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 20%. For people who do not speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 31%. For people who do not speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 20%. For people who speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 53%. For people who speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 59%. The overall probability of smoker is 13%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would ability to speak english negatively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13558, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 77%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 45%.\nWill speaking english decrease the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13560, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 77%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 45%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be less likely to see long lifespan if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13572, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to speak english correlates with lifespan case by case according to diabetes. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with lifespan in general.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13577, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 12%. The probability of not speaking english and long lifespan is 59%. The probability of speaking english and long lifespan is 4%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan smaller when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 6%. The probability of not speaking english and long lifespan is 76%. The probability of speaking english and long lifespan is 3%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan smaller when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 69%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 38%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be more likely to see long lifespan if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13594, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 77%. For people who do not speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 50%. For people who speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 54%. For people who speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 30%. For people who do not speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 25%. For people who do not speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 35%. For people who speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 64%. For people who speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 69%. The overall probability of smoker is 48%.\nDoes ability to speak english negatively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13599, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 96%. For people who do not speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 54%. For people who speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 92%. For people who speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 60%. For people who do not speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 25%. For people who do not speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 55%. For people who speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 59%. For people who speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 80%. The overall probability of smoker is 18%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would ability to speak english positively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 91%. For people who do not speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 71%. For people who speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 69%. For people who speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 43%. For people who do not speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 28%. For people who do not speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 20%. For people who speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 57%. For people who speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 70%. The overall probability of smoker is 8%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would ability to speak english negatively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13613, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 10%. The probability of not speaking english and long lifespan is 77%. The probability of speaking english and long lifespan is 6%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan larger when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13615, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to speak english correlates with lifespan case by case according to diabetes. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with lifespan in general.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13621, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 75%. For people who do not speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 57%. For people who speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 56%. For people who speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 19%. For people who do not speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 27%. For people who do not speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 8%. For people who speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 54%. For people who speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 73%. The overall probability of smoker is 43%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would ability to speak english negatively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 59%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 59%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 93%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 59%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be less likely to see long lifespan if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13637, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 72%. For people who do not speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 55%. For people who speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 47%. For people who speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 27%. For people who do not speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 30%. For people who do not speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 6%. For people who speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 84%. For people who speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 70%. The overall probability of smoker is 41%.\nDoes ability to speak english positively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13638, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 8%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 69%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 32%.\nIs long lifespan more likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13647, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 80%. For people who do not speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 50%. For people who speak english and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 54%. For people who speak english and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 22%. For people who do not speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 14%. For people who do not speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 40%. For people who speak english and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 39%. For people who speak english and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 69%. The overall probability of smoker is 17%.\nDoes ability to speak english negatively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13650, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 70%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 38%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13652, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 70%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 38%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be less likely to see long lifespan if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13654, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 13%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 70%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 38%.\nIs long lifespan less likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13659, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 20%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 70%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 37%.\nIs long lifespan more likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13667, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 81%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 49%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be less likely to see long lifespan if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13670, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 64%. For people who speak english, the probability of long lifespan is 52%.\nWill speaking english decrease the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13675, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 73%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 44%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13676, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 95%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 73%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 44%.\nIs curly hair less likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13677, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 95%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 3%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 42%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13679, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13680, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 58%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 40%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13692, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 89%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 52%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13695, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 90%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 9%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 47%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13698, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 63%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 41%.\nWill citrus intake decrease the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13701, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 92%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 5%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 38%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13702, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13704, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 41%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 25%.\nWill citrus intake decrease the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13705, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 41%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 25%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13706, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 82%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 41%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 25%.\nIs curly hair more likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13708, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 82%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 7%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 20%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13709, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13712, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 97%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 2%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 37%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13715, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 60%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 42%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 84%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 10%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 36%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 84%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 10%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 36%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13721, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 33%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 13%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13722, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 33%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 13%.\nWill citrus intake decrease the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13724, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 33%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 13%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13727, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 93%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 2%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 12%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13728, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 66%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 30%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13734, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 93%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 3%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 31%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13736, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 75%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 40%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 91%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 75%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 40%.\nIs curly hair more likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13738, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 91%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 75%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 40%.\nIs curly hair less likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13739, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 91%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 7%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 36%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13740, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13744, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 83%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 9%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 22%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13748, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 86%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 59%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13750, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 53%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 42%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13751, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 93%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 4%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 39%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13752, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 55%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 36%.\nWill citrus intake decrease the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13759, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 89%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 6%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 20%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13764, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 97%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 1%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 16%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13768, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 54%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 24%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be less likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 83%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 56%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13774, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 83%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 56%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13775, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 91%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 83%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 56%.\nIs curly hair more likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13776, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 91%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 83%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 56%.\nIs curly hair less likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 82%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 37%.\nWill citrus intake decrease the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13781, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 82%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 37%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 86%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 11%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 32%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13786, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 47%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 15%.\nWill citrus intake decrease the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13791, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 84%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 8%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 13%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13792, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13793, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 82%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 65%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13794, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 82%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 65%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13795, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 61%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 30%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13799, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 74%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 48%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be less likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13806, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 90%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 7%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 30%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13811, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 33%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 14%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13813, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 99%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 0%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 14%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13823, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 94%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 68%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 51%.\nIs curly hair less likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13824, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 59%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 47%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13825, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 59%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 47%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13835, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 52%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 35%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 24%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 66%.\nWill increased supply increase the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13836, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 52%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 35%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 24%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 66%.\nWill increased supply decrease the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13840, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 42%. The probability of reduced supply and high rainfall is 46%. The probability of increased supply and high rainfall is 21%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13843, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 54%. The probability of reduced supply and high rainfall is 32%. The probability of increased supply and high rainfall is 18%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13847, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 57%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 51%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 37%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 67%.\nWill increased supply decrease the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13849, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 52%. The probability of reduced supply and high rainfall is 31%. The probability of increased supply and high rainfall is 23%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13850, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how supply correlates with rainfall in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how supply affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13854, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 43%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 36%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 52%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 82%.\nWill increased supply increase the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13861, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 60%. The probability of reduced supply and high rainfall is 25%. The probability of increased supply and high rainfall is 24%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13862, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how supply correlates with rainfall case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how supply correlates with rainfall in general.\nTo understand how supply affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13863, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 40%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 26%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 38%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 72%.\nWill increased supply increase the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13870, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 61%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of high rainfall is 77%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of high rainfall is 46%.\nIs high rainfall more likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13871, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 61%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of high rainfall is 77%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of high rainfall is 46%.\nIs high rainfall less likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how supply correlates with rainfall in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how supply affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13883, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 56%. The probability of reduced supply and high rainfall is 32%. The probability of increased supply and high rainfall is 23%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall larger when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13885, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 23%. For situations with reduced supply, the probability of high rainfall is 71%. For situations with increased supply, the probability of high rainfall is 44%.\nIs high rainfall more likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13891, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how supply correlates with rainfall in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how supply affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13892, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 31%. The probability of reduced supply and high rainfall is 32%. The probability of increased supply and high rainfall is 8%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13896, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of increased supply is 42%. The probability of reduced supply and high rainfall is 42%. The probability of increased supply and high rainfall is 22%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall smaller when observing increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13899, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 91%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 82%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 26%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 70%.\nWill increased supply increase the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13906, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how supply correlates with rainfall in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how supply affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13916, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 54%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of high rainfall is 47%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 41%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased supply is 64%.\nWill increased supply decrease the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13920, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how supply correlates with rainfall in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how supply affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13921, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 4%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 25%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 76%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 97%. The overall probability of male gender is 43%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13925, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 14%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 25%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 72%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 90%. The overall probability of male gender is 41%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13931, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 54%. For patients who do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 62%. For patients who have a brother, the probability of recovery is 36%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13940, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 41%. The probability of not having a brother and recovery is 37%. The probability of having a brother and recovery is 12%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13942, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with recovery case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13944, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 21%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 35%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 85%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 99%. The overall probability of male gender is 44%.\nFor patients who have a brother, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13947, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 5%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 26%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 77%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 98%. The overall probability of male gender is 52%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 8%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 22%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 71%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 84%. The overall probability of male gender is 47%.\nFor patients who have a brother, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13962, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 50%. For patients who do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 66%. For patients who have a brother, the probability of recovery is 23%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13963, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 50%. The probability of not having a brother and recovery is 33%. The probability of having a brother and recovery is 12%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13969, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 42%. For patients who do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 72%. For patients who have a brother, the probability of recovery is 34%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13970, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 42%. The probability of not having a brother and recovery is 42%. The probability of having a brother and recovery is 14%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how having a brother affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 51%. For patients who do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 65%. For patients who have a brother, the probability of recovery is 45%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how having a brother affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 41%. For patients who do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 78%. For patients who have a brother, the probability of recovery is 33%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13983, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 41%. The probability of not having a brother and recovery is 46%. The probability of having a brother and recovery is 14%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13989, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 6%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 20%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 71%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 88%. The overall probability of male gender is 60%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13990, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 6%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 20%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 71%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 88%. The overall probability of male gender is 60%.\nFor patients who have a brother, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 13991, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how having a brother affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 52%. The probability of not having a brother and recovery is 30%. The probability of having a brother and recovery is 15%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13996, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how having a brother affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 13998, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 6%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 26%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 78%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 98%. The overall probability of male gender is 47%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14000, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 64%. The probability of not having a brother and recovery is 27%. The probability of having a brother and recovery is 25%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14001, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 64%. The probability of not having a brother and recovery is 27%. The probability of having a brother and recovery is 25%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with recovery case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 59%. For patients who do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 65%. For patients who have a brother, the probability of recovery is 26%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 45%. For patients who do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 61%. For patients who have a brother, the probability of recovery is 22%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14008, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 24%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 41%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 87%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 97%. The overall probability of male gender is 42%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 58%. For patients who do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 82%. For patients who have a brother, the probability of recovery is 44%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14014, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 50%. For patients who do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 74%. For patients who have a brother, the probability of recovery is 36%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14016, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with recovery case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14018, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 8%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 26%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 84%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 99%. The overall probability of male gender is 53%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14020, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 49%. The probability of not having a brother and recovery is 40%. The probability of having a brother and recovery is 17%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14023, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 46%. For patients who do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 62%. For patients who have a brother, the probability of recovery is 34%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14024, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 46%. The probability of not having a brother and recovery is 33%. The probability of having a brother and recovery is 16%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14027, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 2%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 24%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 74%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 93%. The overall probability of male gender is 56%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14028, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 2%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 24%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 74%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 93%. The overall probability of male gender is 56%.\nFor patients who have a brother, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14030, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 41%. For patients who do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 71%. For patients who have a brother, the probability of recovery is 24%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14032, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 41%. The probability of not having a brother and recovery is 42%. The probability of having a brother and recovery is 10%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14034, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with recovery case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14035, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 1%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 21%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 71%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 90%. The overall probability of male gender is 50%.\nFor patients who have a brother, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14036, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who are not male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 1%. For patients who are not male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 21%. For patients who are male and do not have a brother, the probability of recovery is 71%. For patients who are male and have a brother, the probability of recovery is 90%. The overall probability of male gender is 50%.\nFor patients who have a brother, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14042, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 15%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 23%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 85%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 92%. The overall probability of old age is 49%.\nWill high hospital bill decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14043, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 51%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 76%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 33%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14047, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 45%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 58%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 18%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14051, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 8%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 19%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 81%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 92%. The overall probability of old age is 45%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be less likely to see freckles if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14052, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 59%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 59%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 38%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14054, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 59%. The probability of low hospital bill and freckles is 24%. The probability of high hospital bill and freckles is 22%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14060, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 12%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 23%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 87%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 99%. The overall probability of old age is 45%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see freckles if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14062, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 5%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 11%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 71%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 83%. The overall probability of old age is 48%.\nWill high hospital bill decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14063, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 5%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 11%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 71%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 83%. The overall probability of old age is 48%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be less likely to see freckles if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14067, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14070, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14074, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14081, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14082, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 6%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 18%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 81%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 93%. The overall probability of old age is 46%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see freckles if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14086, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 56%. The probability of low hospital bill and freckles is 30%. The probability of high hospital bill and freckles is 18%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14102, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 8%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 17%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 76%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 90%. The overall probability of old age is 46%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see freckles if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14103, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 50%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 67%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 21%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14105, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with freckles case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14110, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 10%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 18%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 76%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 87%. The overall probability of old age is 42%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be less likely to see freckles if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 5%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 19%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 80%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 93%. The overall probability of old age is 42%.\nWill high hospital bill increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14115, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 4%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 17%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 84%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 89%. The overall probability of old age is 46%.\nWill high hospital bill decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14120, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 1%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 14%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 76%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 89%. The overall probability of old age is 54%.\nWill high hospital bill decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14123, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with freckles case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14131, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 2%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 17%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 81%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 96%. The overall probability of old age is 45%.\nWill high hospital bill decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14134, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 20%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 31%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 87%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 99%. The overall probability of old age is 47%.\nWill high hospital bill increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14135, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 20%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 31%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 87%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 99%. The overall probability of old age is 47%.\nWill high hospital bill decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14137, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 53%. The probability of low hospital bill and freckles is 39%. The probability of high hospital bill and freckles is 19%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14142, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14143, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with freckles case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 12%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 23%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 82%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of freckles is 89%. The overall probability of old age is 51%.\nWill high hospital bill increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14159, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 57%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 57%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 37%.\nIs thick lips more likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 57%. The probability of receives no treatment and thick lips is 25%. The probability of receives treatment and thick lips is 21%.\nIs the chance of thick lips smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14163, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with lip thickness in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how treatment affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14165, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 6%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 16%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 79%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 90%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 49%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of thick lips?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14167, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 55%. The probability of receives no treatment and thick lips is 28%. The probability of receives treatment and thick lips is 20%.\nIs the chance of thick lips larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14170, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 4%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 36%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 64%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 97%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 40%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see thick lips if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14171, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 57%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 58%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 38%.\nIs thick lips more likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14174, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with lip thickness in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how treatment affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14176, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 6%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 38%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 63%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 95%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 50%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see thick lips if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14177, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 6%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 38%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 63%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 95%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 50%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see thick lips if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14180, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 3%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 15%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 79%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 91%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 60%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of thick lips?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14186, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with lip thickness in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how treatment affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14192, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 48%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 57%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 38%.\nIs thick lips less likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14193, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 48%. The probability of receives no treatment and thick lips is 30%. The probability of receives treatment and thick lips is 18%.\nIs the chance of thick lips larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14198, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 37%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 63%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 22%.\nIs thick lips less likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14201, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 46%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 60%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 39%.\nIs thick lips more likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14202, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 46%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 60%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 39%.\nIs thick lips less likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14203, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 46%. The probability of receives no treatment and thick lips is 32%. The probability of receives treatment and thick lips is 18%.\nIs the chance of thick lips larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14204, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with lip thickness case by case according to kidney stone size. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with lip thickness in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14206, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 7%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 18%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 81%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 91%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 54%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see thick lips if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14216, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 8%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 38%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 64%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 97%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 50%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of thick lips?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14217, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 44%. The probability of receives no treatment and thick lips is 32%. The probability of receives treatment and thick lips is 17%.\nIs the chance of thick lips smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14228, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 0%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 31%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 58%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 91%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 53%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see thick lips if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14234, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 64%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 80%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 51%.\nIs thick lips more likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with lip thickness case by case according to kidney stone size. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with lip thickness in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14245, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with lip thickness case by case according to kidney stone size. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with lip thickness in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14247, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 56%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 59%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 40%.\nIs thick lips less likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14254, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 4%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 35%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 61%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 92%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 47%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see thick lips if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14257, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 48%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 64%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 29%.\nIs thick lips more likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14261, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 4%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 35%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 61%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 93%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 41%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see thick lips if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14262, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 53%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 51%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 37%.\nIs thick lips less likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14266, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 60%. The probability of receives no treatment and thick lips is 31%. The probability of receives treatment and thick lips is 25%.\nIs the chance of thick lips smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14268, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 7%. For patients who have small kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 38%. For patients who have large kidney stones and not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 66%. For patients who have large kidney stones and receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 96%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 42%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of thick lips?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14269, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 56%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 57%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of thick lips is 42%.\nIs thick lips less likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14270, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 56%. The probability of receives no treatment and thick lips is 25%. The probability of receives treatment and thick lips is 23%.\nIs the chance of thick lips larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 77%. The probability of receives no treatment and thick lips is 17%. The probability of receives treatment and thick lips is 33%.\nIs the chance of thick lips larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14278, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 5%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 38%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 64%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 95%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 45%.\nWill getting the vaccine increase the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14280, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 49%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 55%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 41%.\nIs being lactose intolerant more likely than not being lactose intolerant overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14281, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 14%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 25%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 87%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 98%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 47%.\nWill getting the vaccine increase the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14282, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 14%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 25%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 87%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 98%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 47%.\nWill getting the vaccine decrease the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14291, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14295, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 8%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 19%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 84%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 97%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 57%.\nWill getting the vaccine decrease the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14297, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 9%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 32%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 75%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 98%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 54%.\nWill getting the vaccine increase the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14298, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 9%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 32%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 75%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 98%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 54%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see being lactose intolerant if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14301, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how vaccination affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14302, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14307, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how vaccination affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14309, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 39%. The probability of vaccine refusal and being lactose intolerant is 45%. The probability of getting the vaccine and being lactose intolerant is 9%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant larger when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14312, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14319, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how vaccination affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14320, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 5%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 37%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 62%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 94%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 51%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see being lactose intolerant if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14322, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 10%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 20%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 83%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 97%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 44%.\nWill getting the vaccine increase the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14330, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 49%. The probability of vaccine refusal and being lactose intolerant is 33%. The probability of getting the vaccine and being lactose intolerant is 16%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant larger when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 2%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 32%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 59%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 91%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 50%.\nWill getting the vaccine increase the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14333, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 2%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 32%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 59%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 91%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 50%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see being lactose intolerant if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14336, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 11%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 22%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 86%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 98%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 56%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see being lactose intolerant if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14339, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 44%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 68%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 40%.\nIs being lactose intolerant more likely than not being lactose intolerant overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14341, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 5%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 36%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 62%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 92%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 54%.\nWill getting the vaccine increase the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14343, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 5%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 36%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 62%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 92%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 54%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be less likely to see being lactose intolerant if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14345, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 7%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 18%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 81%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 94%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 50%.\nWill getting the vaccine decrease the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14350, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 3%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 26%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 70%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 92%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 42%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be less likely to see being lactose intolerant if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14351, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 59%. For people refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 59%. For people getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 34%.\nIs being lactose intolerant more likely than not being lactose intolerant overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14352, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 59%. The probability of vaccine refusal and being lactose intolerant is 24%. The probability of getting the vaccine and being lactose intolerant is 20%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant larger when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14354, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14355, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 7%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 39%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 66%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 99%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 58%.\nWill getting the vaccine increase the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how vaccination affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14361, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 57%. The probability of vaccine refusal and being lactose intolerant is 32%. The probability of getting the vaccine and being lactose intolerant is 22%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant larger when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14362, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 57%. The probability of vaccine refusal and being lactose intolerant is 32%. The probability of getting the vaccine and being lactose intolerant is 22%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant smaller when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how vaccination affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14365, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 7%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 29%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 71%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 94%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 59%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be more likely to see being lactose intolerant if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14383, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how vaccination affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14384, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 55%. The probability of vaccine refusal and being lactose intolerant is 27%. The probability of getting the vaccine and being lactose intolerant is 21%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant larger when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14385, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14392, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to pre-conditions. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how vaccination affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14393, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 7%. For people with no pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 18%. For people with pre-conditions and refusing the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 80%. For people with pre-conditions and getting the vaccine, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 91%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 53%.\nFor people getting the vaccine, would it be less likely to see being lactose intolerant if the person had not refused the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14394, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of getting the vaccine is 35%. The probability of vaccine refusal and being lactose intolerant is 40%. The probability of getting the vaccine and being lactose intolerant is 9%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant larger when observing getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14401, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how vaccination affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14402, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 37%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 30%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 84%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 55%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 77%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 100%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 30%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 64%. The overall probability of good health is 93%.\nDoes maternal smoking status positively affect freckles through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 37%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 70%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14416, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 15%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and freckles is 19%. The probability of smoking mother and freckles is 9%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14417, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 70%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 77%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14419, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 70%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 77%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see freckles if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14425, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 54%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 58%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14435, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 28%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 44%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be less likely to see freckles if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14442, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 28%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 65%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be less likely to see freckles if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14443, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 46%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 21%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 74%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 47%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 51%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 72%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 3%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 35%. The overall probability of good health is 90%.\nDoes maternal smoking status negatively affect freckles through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14444, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 46%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 21%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 74%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 47%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 51%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 72%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 3%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 35%. The overall probability of good health is 90%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status negatively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14448, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 5%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and freckles is 27%. The probability of smoking mother and freckles is 3%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14450, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 42%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 75%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14452, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 42%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 75%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see freckles if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 60%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 32%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 85%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 56%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 47%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 74%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 23%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 48%. The overall probability of good health is 55%.\nDoes maternal smoking status positively affect freckles through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14457, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 12%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and freckles is 19%. The probability of smoking mother and freckles is 8%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14459, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 47%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 57%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see freckles if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 24%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 32%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14469, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 8%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 33%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 41%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14476, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 46%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 84%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see freckles if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14479, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 49%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 61%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be more likely to see freckles if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14480, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 65%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 44%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 69%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 47%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 42%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 80%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 11%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 45%. The overall probability of good health is 82%.\nDoes maternal smoking status positively affect freckles through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14481, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 10%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 49%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 61%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14488, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 61%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 32%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 66%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 33%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 64%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 69%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 30%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 9%. The overall probability of good health is 45%.\nDoes maternal smoking status negatively affect freckles through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14490, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 8%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and freckles is 39%. The probability of smoking mother and freckles is 4%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14500, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 62%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 31%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 96%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 60%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 81%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 76%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 33%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 42%. The overall probability of good health is 45%.\nDoes maternal smoking status positively affect freckles through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14505, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 46%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 61%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14506, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 46%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 61%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be less likely to see freckles if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 18%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and freckles is 38%. The probability of smoking mother and freckles is 11%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14514, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 41%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 53%.\nFor infants with smoking mothers, would it be less likely to see freckles if the infant had a nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14516, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 77%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 47%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 79%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 36%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 67%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 64%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 34%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 20%. The overall probability of good health is 57%.\nDoes maternal smoking status positively affect freckles through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14517, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 77%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 47%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 79%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 36%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 67%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 64%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 34%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 20%. The overall probability of good health is 57%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status negatively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14518, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 20%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 58%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 68%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 66%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 37%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 92%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 64%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 50%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 80%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 20%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 59%. The overall probability of good health is 59%.\nDoes maternal smoking status positively affect freckles through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14528, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with freckles case by case according to infant's birth weight. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14531, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 6%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and freckles is 12%. The probability of smoking mother and freckles is 3%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14532, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with freckles case by case according to infant's birth weight. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14539, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 44%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 79%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 57%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 40%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 86%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 64%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 35%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 82%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 5%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 38%. The overall probability of good health is 86%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status negatively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14543, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 16%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 44%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of freckles is 79%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14546, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to infant's birth weight.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14548, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 85%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 50%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 81%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 56%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 39%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 65%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 1%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 31%. The overall probability of good health is 95%.\nDoes maternal smoking status positively affect freckles through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14550, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 85%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 50%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 81%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 56%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 39%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 65%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 1%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 31%. The overall probability of good health is 95%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status negatively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14554, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 81%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 53%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 92%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 51%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 53%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 84%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 13%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 41%. The overall probability of good health is 48%.\nDoes maternal smoking status positively affect freckles through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14556, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants with nonsmoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 81%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 53%. For infants with smoking mothers and low infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 92%. For infants with smoking mothers and normal infant birth weight, the probability of freckles is 51%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 53%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 84%. For infants with smoking mothers and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 13%. For infants with smoking mothers and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 41%. The overall probability of good health is 48%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would maternal smoking status negatively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14559, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 37%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 71%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 49%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 82%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 32%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 84%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14560, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 32%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 84%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 37%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 71%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 49%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 82%. The overall probability of smoking is 47%.\nDoes smoking positively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14561, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 47%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 48%. For smokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 77%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 82%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 40%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 74%. The overall probability of smoking is 42%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14564, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 82%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 40%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 74%. The overall probability of smoking is 42%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14565, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 82%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 40%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 74%. The overall probability of smoking is 42%.\nDoes smoking positively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14566, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 42%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 55%. For smokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 64%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts more likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14567, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 42%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 55%. For smokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 64%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14569, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14570, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 33%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 88%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 20%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 61%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 20%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 55%. The overall probability of smoking is 52%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14572, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 52%. The probability of nonsmoking and being allergic to peanuts is 16%. The probability of smoking and being allergic to peanuts is 26%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14574, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 58%. The probability of nonsmoking and being allergic to peanuts is 15%. The probability of smoking and being allergic to peanuts is 39%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14575, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14577, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 96%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 25%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 70%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 62%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 93%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14579, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 62%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 93%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 96%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 25%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 70%. The overall probability of smoking is 51%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14582, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 55%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 18%. For smokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 50%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts more likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14583, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 55%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 18%. For smokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 50%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 55%. The probability of nonsmoking and being allergic to peanuts is 8%. The probability of smoking and being allergic to peanuts is 27%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14586, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 53%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 94%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 69%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 31%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 55%. The overall probability of smoking is 63%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14587, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 69%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 31%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 55%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 53%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 94%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14591, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 28%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 58%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 27%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 62%. The overall probability of smoking is 58%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 28%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 58%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 27%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 62%. The overall probability of smoking is 58%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14595, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 21%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 29%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 67%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 31%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 70%. The overall probability of smoking is 55%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 55%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 37%. For smokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 56%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14598, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 55%. The probability of nonsmoking and being allergic to peanuts is 16%. The probability of smoking and being allergic to peanuts is 31%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14600, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 42%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 72%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 42%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 72%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 31%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 80%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14601, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 62%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 51%. For smokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 66%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14603, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14604, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 37%. The probability of nonsmoking and being allergic to peanuts is 29%. The probability of smoking and being allergic to peanuts is 16%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14608, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 37%. The probability of nonsmoking and being allergic to peanuts is 29%. The probability of smoking and being allergic to peanuts is 16%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14609, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 72%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 40%. For smokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 53%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts more likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 72%. The probability of nonsmoking and being allergic to peanuts is 11%. The probability of smoking and being allergic to peanuts is 38%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14612, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 35%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 63%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 25%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 49%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 22%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 73%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14616, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14619, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 16%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 93%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 23%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 50%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 12%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 38%. The overall probability of smoking is 50%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14620, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 50%. The probability of nonsmoking and being allergic to peanuts is 14%. The probability of smoking and being allergic to peanuts is 18%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14621, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14623, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 34%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 83%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 41%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 67%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 40%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 68%. The overall probability of smoking is 42%.\nDoes smoking positively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 42%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 50%. For smokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 63%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14626, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 45%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 70%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 32%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 59%. The overall probability of smoking is 48%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14633, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 45%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 70%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 32%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 59%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14634, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 45%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 70%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 32%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 59%. The overall probability of smoking is 48%.\nDoes smoking positively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14635, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 48%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 50%. For smokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 51%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14638, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 71%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 25%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 57%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 26%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 58%. The overall probability of smoking is 38%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 25%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 57%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 26%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 58%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 71%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14641, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 25%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 57%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 26%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 58%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 71%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 71%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 25%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 57%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 26%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 58%. The overall probability of smoking is 38%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14643, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 38%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 31%. For smokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 49%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts more likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14645, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 25%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 78%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 34%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 59%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 42%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 69%. The overall probability of smoking is 76%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14647, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 34%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 59%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 42%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 69%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 25%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 78%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14651, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 43%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 76%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 16%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 55%. The overall probability of smoking is 48%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14652, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 76%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 16%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 55%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 43%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14653, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 43%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 44%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 76%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 16%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 55%. The overall probability of smoking is 48%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14656, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 56%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 83%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 42%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 83%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 48%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 74%. The overall probability of smoking is 45%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14657, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 45%. The probability of nonsmoking and being allergic to peanuts is 36%. The probability of smoking and being allergic to peanuts is 31%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14659, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 44%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 79%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 20%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 46%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 35%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 58%. The overall probability of smoking is 59%.\nDoes smoking positively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14660, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 44%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 79%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 20%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 46%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 35%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 58%. The overall probability of smoking is 59%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14661, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14663, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 9%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 87%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 41%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 66%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 27%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 53%. The overall probability of smoking is 44%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14664, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 44%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 44%. For smokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 50%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts more likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14665, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14670, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 44%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 71%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 33%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14671, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 44%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 71%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 33%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14672, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 33%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 49%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 44%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 71%. The overall probability of smoking is 12%.\nDoes smoking positively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14674, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14675, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 46%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 17%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 43%. The overall probability of smoking is 49%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14676, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 46%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 17%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 43%. The overall probability of smoking is 49%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14677, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 46%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 17%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 43%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 46%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 17%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 43%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14679, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 64%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 46%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 77%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 17%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 43%. The overall probability of smoking is 49%.\nDoes smoking positively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 49%. The probability of nonsmoking and being allergic to peanuts is 16%. The probability of smoking and being allergic to peanuts is 24%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14685, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 49%. The probability of nonsmoking and being allergic to peanuts is 16%. The probability of smoking and being allergic to peanuts is 24%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 33%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 62%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 19%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 52%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 34%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14689, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 33%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 62%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 19%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 52%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 34%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14690, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 34%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 33%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 62%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 19%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 52%. The overall probability of smoking is 29%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 29%. The probability of nonsmoking and being allergic to peanuts is 30%. The probability of smoking and being allergic to peanuts is 12%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14695, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 39%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 67%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 32%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 61%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 54%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 92%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 54%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 92%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 39%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 67%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 32%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 61%. The overall probability of smoking is 14%.\nDoes smoking positively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14697, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 54%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 92%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 39%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 67%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 32%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 61%. The overall probability of smoking is 14%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect peanut allergy through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14698, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 14%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 54%. For smokers, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 58%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14699, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 14%. The probability of nonsmoking and being allergic to peanuts is 47%. The probability of smoking and being allergic to peanuts is 8%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with peanut allergy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14706, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 56%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14708, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 29%. For people who do not listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. For people who listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For people who listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 23%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 50%. For people who listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 57%. For people who listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 83%. The overall probability of high pollution is 52%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would listening to jazz positively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14715, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how listening to jazz correlates with lung cancer case by case according to smoking. Method 2: We look directly at how listening to jazz correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how listening to jazz affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 19%. The probability of not listening to jazz and lung cancer is 37%. The probability of listening to jazz and lung cancer is 10%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14721, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 22%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 36%.\nWill listening to jazz increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14726, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 56%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14728, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 31%. For people who do not listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 78%. For people who listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For people who listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 4%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 31%. For people who listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 24%. For people who listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 66%. The overall probability of high pollution is 58%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would listening to jazz positively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14729, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 31%. For people who do not listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 78%. For people who listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For people who listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 4%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 31%. For people who listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 24%. For people who listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 66%. The overall probability of high pollution is 58%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would listening to jazz negatively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14731, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 2%. The probability of not listening to jazz and lung cancer is 39%. The probability of listening to jazz and lung cancer is 1%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14739, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 7%. For people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 56%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14742, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 66%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 81%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14743, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. For people who do not listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 80%. For people who listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For people who listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 82%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 49%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 43%. For people who listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 92%. For people who listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 99%. The overall probability of high pollution is 53%.\nDoes listening to jazz positively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14744, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. For people who do not listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 80%. For people who listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For people who listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 82%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 49%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 43%. For people who listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 92%. For people who listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 99%. The overall probability of high pollution is 53%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would listening to jazz positively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14750, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 30%. For people who do not listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For people who listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 20%. For people who listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 63%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 33%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 65%. For people who listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 53%. For people who listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 96%. The overall probability of high pollution is 55%.\nDoes listening to jazz negatively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14751, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 30%. For people who do not listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For people who listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 20%. For people who listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 63%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 33%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 65%. For people who listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 53%. For people who listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 96%. The overall probability of high pollution is 55%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would listening to jazz negatively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14755, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 56%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 67%.\nWill listening to jazz decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14764, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 36%. For people who do not listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 73%. For people who listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 29%. For people who listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 74%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 31%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 74%. For people who listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 65%. For people who listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 100%. The overall probability of high pollution is 42%.\nDoes listening to jazz positively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14765, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 12%. For people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 54%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 64%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14771, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 8%. For people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 64%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 77%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14776, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 45%. For people who do not listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 89%. For people who listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For people who listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 75%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 21%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 47%. For people who listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 56%. For people who listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 83%. The overall probability of high pollution is 57%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would listening to jazz positively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 40%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14790, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 65%.\nWill listening to jazz increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14791, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 42%. For people who do not listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 73%. For people who listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For people who listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 77%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 28%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 30%. For people who listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 67%. For people who listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 71%. The overall probability of high pollution is 55%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would listening to jazz negatively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14793, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 3%. The probability of not listening to jazz and lung cancer is 50%. The probability of listening to jazz and lung cancer is 2%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14809, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 8%. For people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 39%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 48%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14816, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 15%. The probability of not listening to jazz and lung cancer is 30%. The probability of listening to jazz and lung cancer is 6%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14819, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 52%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14822, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 7%. The probability of not listening to jazz and lung cancer is 40%. The probability of listening to jazz and lung cancer is 4%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14828, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 10%. For people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 55%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14833, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 58%.\nWill listening to jazz increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14834, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 58%.\nWill listening to jazz decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14836, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 58%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14837, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For people who do not listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 71%. For people who listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For people who listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 66%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 29%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 58%. For people who listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 64%. For people who listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 84%. The overall probability of high pollution is 56%.\nDoes listening to jazz positively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14838, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For people who do not listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 71%. For people who listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For people who listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 66%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 29%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 58%. For people who listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 64%. For people who listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 84%. The overall probability of high pollution is 56%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would listening to jazz positively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14841, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 18%. The probability of not listening to jazz and lung cancer is 33%. The probability of listening to jazz and lung cancer is 8%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14856, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 2%. For people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 40%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14857, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 2%. The probability of not listening to jazz and lung cancer is 27%. The probability of listening to jazz and lung cancer is 1%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14867, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For people who do not listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. For people who listen to jazz and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For people who listen to jazz and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 32%. For people who do not listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 45%. For people who listen to jazz and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 72%. For people who listen to jazz and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 68%. The overall probability of high pollution is 53%.\nDoes listening to jazz negatively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14868, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 13%. The probability of not listening to jazz and lung cancer is 34%. The probability of listening to jazz and lung cancer is 6%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14869, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 13%. The probability of not listening to jazz and lung cancer is 34%. The probability of listening to jazz and lung cancer is 6%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14870, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how listening to jazz correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to smoking.\nTo understand how listening to jazz affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14878, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how listening to jazz correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how listening to jazz correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how listening to jazz affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14879, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how listening to jazz correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tar deposit.\nTo understand how listening to jazz affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 50%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 73%.\nWill listening to jazz increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14885, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 36%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 57%.\nWill listening to jazz decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 2%. For people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 36%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 57%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14888, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 2%. The probability of not listening to jazz and lung cancer is 36%. The probability of listening to jazz and lung cancer is 1%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14890, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 45%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 60%.\nWill listening to jazz increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14898, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 68%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 79%.\nWill listening to jazz increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14908, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 41%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14914, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 52%.\nWill listening to jazz increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14916, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 52%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14925, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 79%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14932, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 41%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 83%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14933, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 41%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 83%.\nDoes listening to jazz positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14935, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 5%. For people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 41%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 83%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14938, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 34%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nWill listening to jazz increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14939, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 34%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14940, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 34%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nDoes listening to jazz positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14941, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 11%. For people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 34%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14943, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 69%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14946, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 14%. For people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 53%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 69%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14949, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 76%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 90%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14951, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 43%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 64%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14955, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 79%.\nWill listening to jazz increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how listening to jazz correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how listening to jazz correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how listening to jazz affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14963, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 10%. The probability of not listening to jazz and lung cancer is 24%. The probability of listening to jazz and lung cancer is 5%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14965, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 46%.\nWill listening to jazz decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 46%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14968, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how listening to jazz correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tar deposit.\nTo understand how listening to jazz affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14969, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 62%.\nWill listening to jazz decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14970, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 62%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 79%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 79%.\nDoes listening to jazz positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 12%. The probability of not listening to jazz and lung cancer is 30%. The probability of listening to jazz and lung cancer is 8%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14982, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 74%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14983, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 46%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 74%.\nDoes listening to jazz negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14990, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 12%. For people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 52%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 90%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 14993, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 14%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 34%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 14994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 14%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 34%.\nDoes listening to jazz negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15006, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 30%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nDoes listening to jazz negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15011, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 10%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 41%.\nFor people who listen to jazz, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not listen to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15012, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 17%. For people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 10%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 41%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15013, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of listening to jazz is 17%. For people who do not listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 10%. For people who listen to jazz, the probability of lung cancer is 41%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15016, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with brown eyes case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with brown eyes in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15020, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 49%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and brown eyes is 37%. The probability of smoking mother and brown eyes is 23%.\nIs the chance of brown eyes smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15025, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 43%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and brown eyes is 49%. The probability of smoking mother and brown eyes is 17%.\nIs the chance of brown eyes larger when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15037, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of brown eyes is 48%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of brown eyes is 60%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 63%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 37%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15038, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 39%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of brown eyes is 76%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of brown eyes is 33%.\nIs brown eyes less likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15044, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with brown eyes in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15047, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 22%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of brown eyes is 50%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of brown eyes is 22%.\nIs brown eyes less likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15053, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 29%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and brown eyes is 41%. The probability of smoking mother and brown eyes is 3%.\nIs the chance of brown eyes larger when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15060, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of brown eyes is 44%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of brown eyes is 61%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 76%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 49%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15061, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with brown eyes case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with brown eyes in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15070, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of brown eyes is 59%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of brown eyes is 69%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 70%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 41%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 44%. The probability of nonsmoking mother and brown eyes is 46%. The probability of smoking mother and brown eyes is 22%.\nIs the chance of brown eyes smaller when observing smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15076, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with brown eyes case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with brown eyes in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15077, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of brown eyes is 48%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of brown eyes is 57%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 74%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 41%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of brown eyes is 49%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of brown eyes is 68%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 94%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 42%.\nWill smoking mother decrease the chance of brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15090, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 49%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of brown eyes is 77%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of brown eyes is 50%.\nIs brown eyes more likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15094, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of brown eyes is 45%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of brown eyes is 58%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 63%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of smoking mother is 27%.\nWill smoking mother increase the chance of brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15098, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with brown eyes in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 63%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of brown eyes is 88%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of brown eyes is 31%.\nIs brown eyes less likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15104, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking mother is 17%. For infants with nonsmoking mothers, the probability of brown eyes is 60%. For infants with smoking mothers, the probability of brown eyes is 30%.\nIs brown eyes less likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15105, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how maternal smoking status correlates with brown eyes case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how maternal smoking status correlates with brown eyes in general.\nTo understand how maternal smoking status affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15108, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 73%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 65%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 28%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 61%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 72%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 64%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 20%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 53%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15118, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 36%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 77%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 51%.\nIs cholera contraction more likely than cholera prevention overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15120, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 58%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 60%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 56%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 45%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15122, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 55%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 80%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 40%.\nIs cholera contraction less likely than cholera prevention overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15125, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 61%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 50%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 14%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 45%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15128, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 29%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 33%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 83%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 68%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 81%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 65%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 21%.\nIs cholera contraction less likely than cholera prevention overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15130, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 81%. The probability of not liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 13%. The probability of liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 17%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15133, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 72%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 61%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 6%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 42%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15135, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 52%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 68%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 33%.\nIs cholera contraction less likely than cholera prevention overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15141, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 49%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 90%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 38%.\nIs cholera contraction less likely than cholera prevention overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15142, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 49%. The probability of not liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 45%. The probability of liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 19%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15152, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 64%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 66%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 50%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 45%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15153, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 50%. The probability of not liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 44%. The probability of liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 20%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15154, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 28%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 84%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 46%.\nIs cholera contraction more likely than cholera prevention overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15155, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 28%. The probability of not liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 60%. The probability of liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 13%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15157, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 59%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 60%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 33%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 30%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15159, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with cholera in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to poverty.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15160, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 61%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 55%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 26%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 53%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15165, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with cholera in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to poverty.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15168, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with cholera in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to poverty.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects cholera, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15169, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 52%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 68%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 31%.\nIs cholera contraction more likely than cholera prevention overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15170, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 52%. The probability of not liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 33%. The probability of liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 16%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15174, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 40%. The probability of not liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 56%. The probability of liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 11%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15176, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 77%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 70%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 14%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 38%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15182, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 55%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of cholera contraction is 43%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 12%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of liking spicy food is 65%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of cholera contraction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15183, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 41%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 59%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of cholera contraction is 33%.\nIs cholera contraction more likely than cholera prevention overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15193, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 63%. The probability of not liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 24%. The probability of liking spicy food and cholera contraction is 19%.\nIs the chance of cholera contraction larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15197, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with alarm clock in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wife.\nTo understand how having a brother affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15204, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 90%. For people who do not have a brother and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 45%. For people who have a brother and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 58%. For people who have a brother and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 11%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of alarm set by wife is 1%. For people who have a brother, the probability of alarm set by wife is 57%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would having a brother positively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15209, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 17%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 84%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 20%.\nIs ringing alarm less likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15215, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 17%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 71%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 10%.\nIs ringing alarm less likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15239, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 13%. The probability of not having a brother and ringing alarm is 63%. The probability of having a brother and ringing alarm is 3%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15243, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 88%. For people who do not have a brother and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 39%. For people who have a brother and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 50%. For people who have a brother and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 2%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of alarm set by wife is 13%. For people who have a brother, the probability of alarm set by wife is 47%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would having a brother negatively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15255, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 81%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 20%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15258, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 98%. For people who do not have a brother and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 51%. For people who have a brother and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 63%. For people who have a brother and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 17%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of alarm set by wife is 36%. For people who have a brother, the probability of alarm set by wife is 93%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would having a brother positively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15262, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with alarm clock case by case according to wife. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with alarm clock in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15265, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 82%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 24%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see ringing alarm if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15266, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 82%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 24%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see ringing alarm if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15267, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 15%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 82%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 24%.\nIs ringing alarm more likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15276, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 80%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 26%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15279, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 72%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 26%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see ringing alarm if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15281, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 80%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 34%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 2%. The probability of not having a brother and ringing alarm is 78%. The probability of having a brother and ringing alarm is 1%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15285, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with alarm clock case by case according to wife. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with alarm clock in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15293, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 1%. The probability of not having a brother and ringing alarm is 73%. The probability of having a brother and ringing alarm is 0%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15306, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 4%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 79%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 31%.\nIs ringing alarm more likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15313, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 1%. The probability of not having a brother and ringing alarm is 64%. The probability of having a brother and ringing alarm is 0%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15316, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 81%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 18%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see ringing alarm if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15321, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 77%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 25%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15323, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 77%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 25%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see ringing alarm if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15329, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 84%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 29%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15330, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 84%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 29%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 88%. For people who do not have a brother and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 45%. For people who have a brother and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 58%. For people who have a brother and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 13%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of alarm set by wife is 9%. For people who have a brother, the probability of alarm set by wife is 64%.\nDoes having a brother negatively affect alarm clock through wife?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15334, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 88%. For people who do not have a brother and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 45%. For people who have a brother and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 58%. For people who have a brother and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 13%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of alarm set by wife is 9%. For people who have a brother, the probability of alarm set by wife is 64%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would having a brother negatively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15335, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 75%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 16%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15337, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 8%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 75%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 16%.\nIs ringing alarm more likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15338, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 8%. The probability of not having a brother and ringing alarm is 69%. The probability of having a brother and ringing alarm is 1%.\nIs the chance of ringing alarm larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15339, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 74%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 22%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of ringing alarm?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15345, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 1%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 79%. For people who have a brother, the probability of ringing alarm is 30%.\nIs ringing alarm less likely than silent alarm overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15346, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with alarm clock in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wife.\nTo understand how having a brother affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15353, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nFor people who do not have a brother and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 94%. For people who do not have a brother and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 45%. For people who have a brother and wives that don't set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 62%. For people who have a brother and wives that set the alarm, the probability of ringing alarm is 6%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of alarm set by wife is 9%. For people who have a brother, the probability of alarm set by wife is 66%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wife, would having a brother negatively affect alarm clock?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15359, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with alarm clock in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wife.\nTo understand how having a brother affects alarm clock, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15360, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 86%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 55%.\nFor people who drink coffee, would it be more likely to see dark room if the person did not drink coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15361, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 7%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 86%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 55%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 87%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 55%.\nWill drinking coffee increase the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15365, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15366, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 84%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 50%.\nWill drinking coffee decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15367, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 84%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 50%.\nFor people who drink coffee, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person did not drink coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15369, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15371, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with room case by case according to the candle. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with room in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15376, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 17%. The probability of not drinking coffee and dark room is 69%. The probability of drinking coffee and dark room is 8%.\nIs the chance of dark room smaller when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15378, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 89%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 58%.\nWill drinking coffee decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15380, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 89%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 58%.\nFor people who drink coffee, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person did not drink coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15383, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with room case by case according to the candle. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with room in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15384, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 96%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 61%.\nWill drinking coffee decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with room case by case according to the candle. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with room in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15387, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 89%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 57%.\nWill drinking coffee decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15388, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 89%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 57%.\nFor people who drink coffee, would it be more likely to see dark room if the person did not drink coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15391, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 88%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 57%.\nFor people who drink coffee, would it be less likely to see dark room if the person did not drink coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15396, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 3%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 85%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 52%.\nIs dark room less likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15402, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 16%. The probability of not drinking coffee and dark room is 74%. The probability of drinking coffee and dark room is 9%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15403, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 16%. The probability of not drinking coffee and dark room is 74%. The probability of drinking coffee and dark room is 9%.\nIs the chance of dark room smaller when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15408, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 93%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 62%.\nWill drinking coffee decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15410, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 17%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 93%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 62%.\nIs dark room less likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15411, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 17%. The probability of not drinking coffee and dark room is 77%. The probability of drinking coffee and dark room is 11%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15418, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 5%. The probability of not drinking coffee and dark room is 82%. The probability of drinking coffee and dark room is 3%.\nIs the chance of dark room smaller when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15422, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 10%. The probability of not drinking coffee and dark room is 75%. The probability of drinking coffee and dark room is 5%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 10%. The probability of not drinking coffee and dark room is 75%. The probability of drinking coffee and dark room is 5%.\nIs the chance of dark room smaller when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 88%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 55%.\nWill drinking coffee increase the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15430, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nFor people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 83%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 49%.\nWill drinking coffee decrease the chance of dark room?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15432, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 15%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 83%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 49%.\nIs dark room less likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15437, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 14%. The probability of not drinking coffee and dark room is 81%. The probability of drinking coffee and dark room is 8%.\nIs the chance of dark room larger when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 7%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 78%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 45%.\nIs dark room less likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15455, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 3%. The probability of not drinking coffee and dark room is 82%. The probability of drinking coffee and dark room is 1%.\nIs the chance of dark room smaller when observing drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15460, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with room in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the candle.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects room, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 18%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 87%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 54%.\nIs dark room more likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 18%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 87%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of dark room is 54%.\nIs dark room less likely than bright room overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15473, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 83%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 50%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 50%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 15%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 7%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 13%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see large feet if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15475, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 29%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and large feet is 57%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and large feet is 13%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15478, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 83%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 44%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 48%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 6%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 35%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 38%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see large feet if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15479, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 25%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 69%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 32%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15481, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 25%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and large feet is 52%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and large feet is 8%.\nIs the chance of large feet larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15482, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15483, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with foot size case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15485, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 96%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 62%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 54%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 16%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 26%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 34%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see large feet if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15486, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 34%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and large feet is 57%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and large feet is 14%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15487, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 84%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 49%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 45%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 13%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 32%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 62%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see large feet if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15488, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 30%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 73%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 25%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15491, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with foot size case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15493, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with foot size case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15494, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 81%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 46%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 49%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 10%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 15%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 39%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see large feet if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15498, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 52%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 14%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 71%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 32%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 98%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15502, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 54%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 14%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 70%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 27%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 87%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15505, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 54%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 21%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 79%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 46%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 92%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15507, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 23%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 79%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 40%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 52%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 20%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 77%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 47%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 91%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15509, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 52%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 20%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 77%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 47%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 91%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15511, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 35%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 76%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 42%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15512, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 35%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 76%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 42%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15513, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 44%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 9%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 70%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 34%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 83%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15514, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 84%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 44%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 49%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 8%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 37%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 67%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see large feet if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15516, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with foot size case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15517, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 61%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 24%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 77%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 42%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 95%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15518, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15519, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with foot size case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15520, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 44%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 7%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 76%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 34%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 89%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15521, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 44%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 7%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 76%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 34%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 89%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15523, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 24%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 75%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 23%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 24%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and large feet is 57%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and large feet is 6%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15529, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with foot size case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 96%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 59%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 50%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 13%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 8%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 19%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see large feet if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15533, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 46%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 93%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 43%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15535, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 53%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 22%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 73%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 42%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 81%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15538, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15539, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with foot size case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15540, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 49%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 8%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 63%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 25%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 82%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15543, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 63%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 21%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 84%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 46%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 90%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15545, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 66%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 19%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 81%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 37%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 88%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter decrease the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15549, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 26%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 93%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 42%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15551, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 26%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and large feet is 68%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and large feet is 11%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15552, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15553, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 98%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 63%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 66%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 25%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 17%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 41%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see large feet if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15554, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 28%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 92%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 49%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15557, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15559, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 17%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and large feet is 70%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and large feet is 7%.\nIs the chance of large feet larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15561, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with foot size case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15562, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 60%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 10%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 80%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 33%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 89%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 25%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and large feet is 59%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and large feet is 6%.\nIs the chance of large feet larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15565, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 86%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 47%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 37%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 6%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 40%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 52%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be more likely to see large feet if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15568, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with foot size case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15574, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with foot size case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15575, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 96%. For managers who don't sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 57%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 52%. For managers who sign termination letters and directors who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 10%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 30%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of director signing the termination letter is 36%.\nFor managers who sign termination letters, would it be less likely to see large feet if the manager had signed the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15576, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 57%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and large feet is 37%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and large feet is 21%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15577, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look at how manager correlates with foot size case by case according to director. Method 2: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15578, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nFor CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 62%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 15%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 83%. For CEOs who fire employees and managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 35%. The overall probability of CEO's decision to fire the employee is 94%.\nWill manager signing the termination letter increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15579, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 14%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 83%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 29%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15580, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 14%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 83%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 29%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15581, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 14%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and large feet is 71%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and large feet is 4%.\nIs the chance of large feet larger when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15582, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 14%. The probability of manager not signing the termination letter and large feet is 71%. The probability of manager signing the termination letter and large feet is 4%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing manager signing the termination letter?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15583, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how manager correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to director.\nTo understand how manager affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 17%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 93%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 36%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and manager. Manager has a direct effect on foot size. Director has a direct effect on foot size.\nThe overall probability of manager signing the termination letter is 17%. For managers who don't sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 93%. For managers who sign termination letters, the probability of large feet is 36%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15587, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 40%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 78%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15589, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 40%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 78%.\nDoes having visited England positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15591, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15592, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 22%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 68%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 22%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 68%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15595, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 34%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 73%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 34%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 73%.\nWill having visited England decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15598, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 13%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 34%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 73%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15599, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 13%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 34%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 73%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15605, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 16%. The probability of not having visited England and the prisoner's death is 24%. The probability of having visited England and the prisoner's death is 12%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15606, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 21%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 66%.\nWill having visited England decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 57%. The probability of not having visited England and the prisoner's death is 9%. The probability of having visited England and the prisoner's death is 38%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15609, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 33%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 81%.\nDoes having visited England negatively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 18%. The probability of not having visited England and the prisoner's death is 27%. The probability of having visited England and the prisoner's death is 15%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15612, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 24%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 74%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15613, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 24%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 74%.\nDoes having visited England positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15616, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how having visited England affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 32%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 75%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15618, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 32%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 75%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15619, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 32%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 75%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15621, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 19%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 32%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 75%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15623, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 28%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 62%.\nWill having visited England increase the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15625, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 28%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 62%.\nDoes having visited England negatively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 11%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 55%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15634, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 7%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 11%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 55%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15635, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how having visited England affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 49%. The probability of not having visited England and the prisoner's death is 6%. The probability of having visited England and the prisoner's death is 30%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 36%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 72%.\nDoes having visited England positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15646, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 43%. The probability of not having visited England and the prisoner's death is 12%. The probability of having visited England and the prisoner's death is 31%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15650, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15653, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 12%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 57%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be less likely to see the prisoner's death if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15655, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15662, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 12%. The probability of not having visited England and the prisoner's death is 32%. The probability of having visited England and the prisoner's death is 10%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death larger when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15664, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 30%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 69%.\nFor people who have visited England, would it be more likely to see the prisoner's death if the person had not visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15670, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 33%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 89%.\nWill having visited England decrease the chance of the prisoner's death?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15671, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 33%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 89%.\nDoes having visited England positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 8%. The probability of not having visited England and the prisoner's death is 29%. The probability of having visited England and the prisoner's death is 7%.\nIs the chance of the prisoner's death smaller when observing having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15685, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 29%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 81%.\nDoes having visited England positively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15686, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 16%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 29%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 81%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15691, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nFor people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 23%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 64%.\nDoes having visited England negatively affect prisoner through the corporal and the private?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15694, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15705, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with prisoner in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the private.\nTo understand how having visited England affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15709, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 71%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 31%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 72%.\nIs the prisoner's death more likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15710, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15714, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nThe overall probability of having visited England is 17%. For people who have not visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 37%. For people who have visited England, the probability of the prisoner's death is 69%.\nIs the prisoner's death less likely than the prisoner being alive overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15715, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nMethod 1: We look at how having visited England correlates with prisoner case by case according to the private. Method 2: We look directly at how having visited England correlates with prisoner in general.\nTo understand how having visited England affects prisoner, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15716, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 46%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 34%.\nWill rainy season increase the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 46%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 34%.\nWill rainy season decrease the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15718, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 46%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 34%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be less likely to see high rainfall if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15728, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 85%. For people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 55%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 54%.\nIs high rainfall more likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15729, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 85%. For people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 55%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 54%.\nIs high rainfall less likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15730, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 62%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 69%.\nDoes season positively affect rainfall through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15731, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 93%. For people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 62%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 69%.\nIs high rainfall more likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15734, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nMethod 1: We look at how season correlates with rainfall case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how season correlates with rainfall in general.\nTo understand how season affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15740, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 98%. For people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 41%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 38%.\nIs high rainfall more likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15741, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 98%. For people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 41%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 38%.\nIs high rainfall less likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15742, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 98%. The probability of dry season and high rainfall is 1%. The probability of rainy season and high rainfall is 37%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall larger when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15747, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 87%. For people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 55%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 60%.\nIs high rainfall more likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15749, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nMethod 1: We look at how season correlates with rainfall case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how season correlates with rainfall in general.\nTo understand how season affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15750, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 45%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 47%.\nDoes season positively affect rainfall through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15751, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 51%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 51%.\nWill rainy season decrease the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15752, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 51%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 51%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be less likely to see high rainfall if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15754, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 90%. For people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 51%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 51%.\nIs high rainfall less likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15755, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 90%. The probability of dry season and high rainfall is 5%. The probability of rainy season and high rainfall is 46%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall larger when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15757, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 90%. For people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 54%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 65%.\nIs high rainfall more likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15759, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 57%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 58%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be more likely to see high rainfall if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15761, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 90%. For people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 57%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 58%.\nIs high rainfall less likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15762, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 90%. The probability of dry season and high rainfall is 6%. The probability of rainy season and high rainfall is 53%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall smaller when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15766, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how season correlates with rainfall in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how season affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15767, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 52%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 58%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be more likely to see high rainfall if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how season correlates with rainfall in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how season affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15776, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 54%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 43%.\nDoes season positively affect rainfall through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15777, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 54%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 43%.\nDoes season negatively affect rainfall through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15779, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 84%. For people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 54%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 43%.\nIs high rainfall less likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 84%. The probability of dry season and high rainfall is 9%. The probability of rainy season and high rainfall is 36%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall larger when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15781, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 36%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 35%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be more likely to see high rainfall if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15783, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nMethod 1: We look at how season correlates with rainfall case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how season correlates with rainfall in general.\nTo understand how season affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how season correlates with rainfall in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to sprinkler.\nTo understand how season affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15794, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 46%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 64%.\nWill rainy season increase the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15795, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 46%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 64%.\nWill rainy season decrease the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 46%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 64%.\nDoes season positively affect rainfall through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15803, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 40%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 41%.\nDoes season positively affect rainfall through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15808, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 46%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 57%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be less likely to see high rainfall if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15810, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 99%. The probability of dry season and high rainfall is 1%. The probability of rainy season and high rainfall is 57%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall larger when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15815, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 66%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 62%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be more likely to see high rainfall if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15817, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 66%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 62%.\nDoes season negatively affect rainfall through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15822, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 36%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 38%.\nDoes season negatively affect rainfall through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15827, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 50%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 51%.\nWill rainy season decrease the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15841, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 56%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 43%.\nWill rainy season decrease the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15842, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 56%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 43%.\nFor in the rainy season, would it be more likely to see high rainfall if the season had been dry?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15844, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 56%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 43%.\nDoes season positively affect rainfall through weather and sprinkler?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15845, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 93%. For people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 56%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 43%.\nIs high rainfall more likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15847, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 49%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 49%.\nWill rainy season increase the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15848, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 49%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 49%.\nWill rainy season decrease the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15849, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 95%. For people in the dry season, the probability of high rainfall is 49%. For in the rainy season, the probability of high rainfall is 49%.\nIs high rainfall more likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15850, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of rainy season is 95%. The probability of dry season and high rainfall is 2%. The probability of rainy season and high rainfall is 46%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall smaller when observing rainy season?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15851, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Season has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on rainfall. Sprinkler has a direct effect on rainfall.\nMethod 1: We look at how season correlates with rainfall case by case according to sprinkler. Method 2: We look directly at how season correlates with rainfall in general.\nTo understand how season affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15855, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 70%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 55%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15858, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 83%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 51%.\nWill speaking english decrease the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15859, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 83%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 51%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be less likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15860, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 90%. The probability of not speaking english and the forest on fire is 8%. The probability of speaking english and the forest on fire is 46%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15863, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 69%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 52%.\nWill speaking english decrease the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15870, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 95%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 60%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be less likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15875, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 97%. The probability of not speaking english and the forest on fire is 3%. The probability of speaking english and the forest on fire is 61%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15877, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 89%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 55%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 95%. The probability of not speaking english and the forest on fire is 4%. The probability of speaking english and the forest on fire is 52%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15881, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 95%. The probability of not speaking english and the forest on fire is 4%. The probability of speaking english and the forest on fire is 52%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15882, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 75%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 59%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15884, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 94%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 75%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 59%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15888, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 97%. The probability of not speaking english and the forest on fire is 3%. The probability of speaking english and the forest on fire is 43%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15889, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to speak english correlates with the forest case by case according to the smoker. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with the forest in general.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15897, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 86%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 72%.\nWill speaking english decrease the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15898, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 86%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 72%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be less likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15899, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 91%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 86%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 72%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15901, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to speak english correlates with the forest case by case according to the smoker. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with the forest in general.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15902, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 83%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 48%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15910, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 95%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 80%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 48%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15913, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 92%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 78%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 60%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15914, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 92%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 78%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 60%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15915, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 79%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 44%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15916, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 79%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 44%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15917, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 99%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 79%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 44%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15918, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15922, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 99%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 71%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 59%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15927, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 98%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 80%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 47%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15929, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 98%. The probability of not speaking english and the forest on fire is 2%. The probability of speaking english and the forest on fire is 46%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15931, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15933, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 93%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 79%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 65%.\nIs the forest on fire more likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 93%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 79%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 65%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15935, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 93%. The probability of not speaking english and the forest on fire is 5%. The probability of speaking english and the forest on fire is 61%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15936, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with the forest in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to the smoker.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects the forest, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15939, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 80%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 49%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15940, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 92%. The probability of not speaking english and the forest on fire is 7%. The probability of speaking english and the forest on fire is 45%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire smaller when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15941, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 81%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 64%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15945, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 93%. The probability of not speaking english and the forest on fire is 6%. The probability of speaking english and the forest on fire is 46%.\nIs the chance of the forest on fire larger when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15949, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 95%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 71%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 57%.\nIs the forest on fire less likely than the forest not on fire overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 87%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 53%.\nFor people who speak english, would it be more likely to see the forest on fire if the person did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15964, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nFor people who do not speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 78%. For people who speak english, the probability of the forest on fire is 45%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of the forest on fire?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15973, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 9%. The probability of waking up on time and high rainfall is 33%. The probability of waking up late and high rainfall is 6%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15976, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 19%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 44%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 78%.\nIs high rainfall less likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15979, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 2%. The probability of waking up on time and high rainfall is 46%. The probability of waking up late and high rainfall is 1%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 52%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 85%.\nWill waking up late decrease the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 15987, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with rainfall in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to traffic.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 15992, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nMethod 1: We look at how Alice waking up correlates with rainfall case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with rainfall in general.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 46%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 79%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be less likely to see high rainfall if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16006, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 53%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 85%.\nWill waking up late decrease the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nMethod 1: We look at how Alice waking up correlates with rainfall case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with rainfall in general.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16012, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 43%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 76%.\nWill waking up late increase the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16015, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 43%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 76%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be less likely to see high rainfall if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16016, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 12%. The probability of waking up on time and high rainfall is 37%. The probability of waking up late and high rainfall is 9%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16019, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 52%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 87%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see high rainfall if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16020, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 52%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 87%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be less likely to see high rainfall if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16029, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 52%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 84%.\nWill waking up late increase the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 52%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 83%.\nWill waking up late increase the chance of high rainfall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16040, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 5%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 46%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 78%.\nIs high rainfall less likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16041, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 5%. The probability of waking up on time and high rainfall is 44%. The probability of waking up late and high rainfall is 4%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16043, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 14%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 54%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 85%.\nIs high rainfall more likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16047, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 9%. The probability of waking up on time and high rainfall is 53%. The probability of waking up late and high rainfall is 8%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall smaller when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16048, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nMethod 1: We look at how Alice waking up correlates with rainfall case by case according to traffic. Method 2: We look directly at how Alice waking up correlates with rainfall in general.\nTo understand how Alice waking up affects rainfall, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16050, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 49%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 84%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see high rainfall if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16057, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 3%. For days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 53%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 83%.\nIs high rainfall less likely than low rainfall overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16058, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 3%. The probability of waking up on time and high rainfall is 51%. The probability of waking up late and high rainfall is 2%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall smaller when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16062, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 11%. The probability of waking up on time and high rainfall is 40%. The probability of waking up late and high rainfall is 9%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall larger when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16066, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nFor days when Alice wakes up on time, the probability of high rainfall is 48%. For days when Alice wakes up late, the probability of high rainfall is 80%.\nFor days when Alice wakes up late, would it be more likely to see high rainfall if Alice had gotten up on time?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16076, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 6%. The probability of waking up on time and high rainfall is 44%. The probability of waking up late and high rainfall is 5%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall smaller when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16080, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Alice waking up has a direct effect on rainfall. Traffic has a direct effect on rainfall.\nThe overall probability of waking up late is 11%. The probability of waking up on time and high rainfall is 35%. The probability of waking up late and high rainfall is 8%.\nIs the chance of high rainfall smaller when observing waking up late?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 54%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 16%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16087, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 62%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 18%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be less likely to see black hair if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16091, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 74%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 17%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be less likely to see black hair if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16093, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 84%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and black hair is 12%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and black hair is 14%.\nIs the chance of black hair smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16096, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 59%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 21%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16098, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 74%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 42%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 74%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 42%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 74%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 42%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be less likely to see black hair if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16109, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 61%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 15%.\nWill tanning salon treatment decrease the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16111, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 93%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 76%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 28%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16112, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 93%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and black hair is 5%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and black hair is 26%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 93%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and black hair is 5%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and black hair is 26%.\nIs the chance of black hair smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 93%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 70%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 28%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16128, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 69%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 28%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16139, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 92%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and black hair is 6%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and black hair is 31%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16143, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 100%. The probability of no tanning salon treatment and black hair is 0%. The probability of tanning salon treatment and black hair is 33%.\nIs the chance of black hair smaller when observing tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16148, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 66%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 24%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 99%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 66%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 24%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16150, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with black hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to going to the beach.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16158, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 85%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 75%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 35%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16160, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 58%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 18%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16161, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 58%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 18%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 85%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 58%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 18%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16167, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 69%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 23%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16171, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with black hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to going to the beach.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16174, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how tanning salon treatment correlates with black hair case by case according to going to the beach. Method 2: We look directly at how tanning salon treatment correlates with black hair in general.\nTo understand how tanning salon treatment affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16176, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 71%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 31%.\nWill tanning salon treatment increase the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16177, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 71%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 31%.\nWill tanning salon treatment decrease the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16185, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of tanning salon treatment is 91%. For people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 50%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 12%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16191, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on black hair. Going to the beach has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor people not using tanning salon treatments, the probability of black hair is 71%. For people who went to tanning salons, the probability of black hair is 19%.\nFor people who went to tanning salons, would it be less likely to see black hair if the person had not had a tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16215, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of curly hair is 63%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of curly hair is 7%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be more likely to see curly hair if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16216, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of curly hair is 63%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of curly hair is 7%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be less likely to see curly hair if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16221, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of curly hair is 70%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of curly hair is 17%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be less likely to see curly hair if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16226, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 76%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 64%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 18%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 25%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 32%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 80%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect curly hair through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16235, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how my decision correlates with curly hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to penguin mood.\nTo understand how my decision affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of curly hair is 48%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of curly hair is 4%.\nFor those who choose to take the elevator, would it be more likely to see curly hair if I had taken the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16239, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 48%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 48%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 14%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 3%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 51%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 90%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision negatively affect curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16240, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 8%. The probability of taking the stairs and curly hair is 44%. The probability of taking the elevator and curly hair is 0%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16243, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 71%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 47%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 35%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 15%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 4%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 54%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect curly hair through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16248, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 56%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 64%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 26%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 17%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 12%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 99%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision negatively affect curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of curly hair is 87%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of curly hair is 24%.\nWill taking the elevator decrease the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16267, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 1%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of curly hair is 87%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of curly hair is 24%.\nIs curly hair less likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16268, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of curly hair is 53%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of curly hair is 11%.\nWill taking the elevator increase the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16269, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of curly hair is 53%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of curly hair is 11%.\nWill taking the elevator decrease the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 10%. The probability of taking the stairs and curly hair is 66%. The probability of taking the elevator and curly hair is 2%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16276, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of curly hair is 94%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of curly hair is 45%.\nWill taking the elevator increase the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16287, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 71%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 68%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 21%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 34%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 30%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 65%.\nDoes my decision positively affect curly hair through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16289, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with curly hair case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with curly hair in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16292, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 76%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 44%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 26%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 1%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 55%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 92%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect curly hair through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16307, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 10%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of curly hair is 64%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of curly hair is 25%.\nIs curly hair more likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16312, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 77%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 57%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 39%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 19%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 44%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 87%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect curly hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16314, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 15%. The probability of taking the stairs and curly hair is 58%. The probability of taking the elevator and curly hair is 3%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16319, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 75%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 73%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 16%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 32%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 20%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 100%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect curly hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16322, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with curly hair case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with curly hair in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16324, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of curly hair is 72%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of curly hair is 24%.\nWill taking the elevator decrease the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16329, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 65%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 50%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 13%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 12%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 21%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 67%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect curly hair through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16335, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how my decision correlates with curly hair case by case according to penguin mood. Method 2: We look directly at how my decision correlates with curly hair in general.\nTo understand how my decision affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16340, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 4%. The probability of taking the stairs and curly hair is 76%. The probability of taking the elevator and curly hair is 1%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16345, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 85%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 59%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 23%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 40%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 68%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect curly hair through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16346, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 85%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 59%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 45%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 23%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 40%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 68%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision negatively affect curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 1%. The probability of taking the stairs and curly hair is 74%. The probability of taking the elevator and curly hair is 0%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16350, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 90%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 91%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 48%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 54%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 33%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 75%.\nDoes my decision negatively affect curly hair through penguin mood?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16351, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 90%. For those who choose to take the stairs and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 91%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are sad, the probability of curly hair is 48%. For those who choose to take the elevator and penguins who are happy, the probability of curly hair is 54%. For those who choose to take the stairs, the probability of penguin happiness is 33%. For those who choose to take the elevator, the probability of penguin happiness is 75%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through penguin mood, would my decision positively affect curly hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16361, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and curly hair. Penguin mood has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of taking the elevator is 2%. The probability of taking the stairs and curly hair is 85%. The probability of taking the elevator and curly hair is 0%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16364, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 16%. The probability of lack of vaccination and black hair is 45%. The probability of vaccination and black hair is 8%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16366, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with black hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vaccination reaction.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16367, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 47%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 44%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 57%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 66%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16374, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 6%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 57%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 66%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16375, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 6%. The probability of lack of vaccination and black hair is 53%. The probability of vaccination and black hair is 4%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16376, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 43%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 54%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be less likely to see black hair if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16377, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 2%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 43%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 54%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16379, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination status correlates with black hair case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with black hair in general.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 48%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 58%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16382, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 1%. The probability of lack of vaccination and black hair is 48%. The probability of vaccination and black hair is 1%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16385, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 6%. The probability of lack of vaccination and black hair is 33%. The probability of vaccination and black hair is 2%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination status correlates with black hair case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with black hair in general.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16389, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 2%. The probability of lack of vaccination and black hair is 28%. The probability of vaccination and black hair is 1%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16393, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 49%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 49%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be less likely to see black hair if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16394, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 9%. The probability of lack of vaccination and black hair is 45%. The probability of vaccination and black hair is 4%.\nIs the chance of black hair smaller when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16395, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 51%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 40%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16402, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 41%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 42%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16406, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 43%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 41%.\nDoes vaccination status positively affect black hair through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination status correlates with black hair case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with black hair in general.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16408, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 41%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 51%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16410, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 2%. The probability of lack of vaccination and black hair is 40%. The probability of vaccination and black hair is 1%.\nIs the chance of black hair smaller when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16412, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 47%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 52%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16416, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 32%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 38%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16417, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 32%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 38%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16421, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 55%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 55%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16424, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 7%. The probability of lack of vaccination and black hair is 52%. The probability of vaccination and black hair is 4%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 52%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 59%.\nWill vaccination increase the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16428, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 52%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 59%.\nDoes vaccination status negatively affect black hair through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16429, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 14%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 52%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 59%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16435, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 3%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 40%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 38%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16436, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 3%. The probability of lack of vaccination and black hair is 39%. The probability of vaccination and black hair is 1%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16443, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 59%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 53%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16444, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 59%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 53%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be less likely to see black hair if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16446, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 4%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 59%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 53%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16448, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 42%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 33%.\nDoes vaccination status positively affect black hair through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 12%. The probability of lack of vaccination and black hair is 38%. The probability of vaccination and black hair is 4%.\nIs the chance of black hair smaller when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16454, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 42%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 60%.\nDoes vaccination status positively affect black hair through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16456, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 10%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 42%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 60%.\nIs black hair more likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16459, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 27%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 37%.\nWill vaccination decrease the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with black hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vaccination reaction.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 54%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 46%.\nWill vaccination increase the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16464, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 54%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 46%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be less likely to see black hair if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16468, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 51%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 44%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16474, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 62%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 62%.\nWill vaccination increase the chance of black hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16476, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 62%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 62%.\nDoes vaccination status negatively affect black hair through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16480, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 11%. For unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 53%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 58%.\nIs black hair less likely than blond hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16481, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 11%. The probability of lack of vaccination and black hair is 47%. The probability of vaccination and black hair is 6%.\nIs the chance of black hair smaller when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16482, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination status correlates with black hair case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with black hair in general.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16484, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 51%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 64%.\nFor vaccinated individuals, would it be more likely to see black hair if the person had been vaccinated?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16485, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nFor unvaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 51%. For vaccinated individuals, the probability of black hair is 64%.\nDoes vaccination status positively affect black hair through getting smallpox and vaccination reaction?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16488, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nThe overall probability of vaccination is 10%. The probability of lack of vaccination and black hair is 46%. The probability of vaccination and black hair is 7%.\nIs the chance of black hair larger when observing vaccination?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16493, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vaccination status has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on black hair. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on black hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how vaccination status correlates with black hair case by case according to vaccination reaction. Method 2: We look directly at how vaccination status correlates with black hair in general.\nTo understand how vaccination status affects black hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16496, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 62%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 45%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16497, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 62%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 45%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16498, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 48%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 76%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 19%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 47%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 50%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 92%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16499, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 7%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 62%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 45%.\nIs healthy heart less likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16502, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 69%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 98%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 36%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 61%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 70%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 55%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would having a sister negatively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16507, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 9%. The probability of not having a sister and healthy heart is 52%. The probability of having a sister and healthy heart is 3%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16509, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 80%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 22%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16511, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 61%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 92%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 18%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 45%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 61%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 14%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16512, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 6%. The probability of not having a sister and healthy heart is 75%. The probability of having a sister and healthy heart is 1%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16517, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 5%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 69%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 51%.\nIs healthy heart more likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 19%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 68%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 40%.\nIs healthy heart more likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16532, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 45%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 28%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be more likely to see healthy heart if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16534, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 38%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 69%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 4%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 34%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 25%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 80%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would having a sister positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16538, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 55%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 30%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16540, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 43%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 71%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 18%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 43%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 42%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 49%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would having a sister positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16541, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 43%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 71%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 18%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 43%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 42%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 49%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would having a sister negatively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16543, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 19%. The probability of not having a sister and healthy heart is 44%. The probability of having a sister and healthy heart is 6%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16553, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 75%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 28%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16556, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 62%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 55%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16571, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with heart condition case by case according to blood pressure. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with heart condition in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects heart condition, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16582, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 95%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 28%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16583, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 64%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 97%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 23%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 53%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 93%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 15%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16591, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 46%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 79%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 18%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 47%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 16%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 81%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would having a sister positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16594, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 9%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 64%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 23%.\nIs healthy heart less likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 64%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 53%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16598, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 19%. The probability of not having a sister and healthy heart is 52%. The probability of having a sister and healthy heart is 10%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16615, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 56%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 83%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 27%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 51%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 41%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 71%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through blood pressure, would having a sister positively affect heart condition?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16616, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 18%. The probability of not having a sister and healthy heart is 55%. The probability of having a sister and healthy heart is 8%.\nIs the chance of healthy heart larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 73%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 37%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see healthy heart if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16633, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 10%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 73%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 37%.\nIs healthy heart less likely than heart problems overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16639, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 40%. For people who do not have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 69%. For people who have a sister and with low blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 7%. For people who have a sister and with high blood pressure, the probability of healthy heart is 44%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 54%. For people who have a sister, the probability of high blood pressure is 28%.\nDoes having a sister negatively affect heart condition through blood pressure?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16643, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 69%. For people who have a sister, the probability of healthy heart is 47%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of healthy heart?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16649, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 95%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of talent is 83%. For people who speak english, the probability of talent is 83%.\nIs talent more likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16661, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with talent in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16669, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between speaking english and talent is -0.06.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that speaking english does not affect talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16673, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 84%. For people who do not speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 91%. For people who do not speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 76%. For people who speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 87%. For people who speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 73%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent increase when speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16685, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 98%. For people who do not speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 94%. For people who do not speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 81%. For people who speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 91%. For people who speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 74%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent decrease when speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16686, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 84%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of talent is 88%. For people who speak english, the probability of talent is 88%.\nIs talent less likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between speaking english and talent is -0.09.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that speaking english affects talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 94%. For people who do not speak english, the probability of talent is 83%. For people who speak english, the probability of talent is 83%.\nIs talent less likely than lack of talent overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16689, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between speaking english and talent is -0.08.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that speaking english does not affect talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16692, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with talent in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 92%. For people who do not speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 95%. For people who do not speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 76%. For people who speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 88%. For people who speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 67%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent increase when speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16695, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between speaking english and talent is -0.12.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that speaking english does not affect talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to speak english correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16706, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 89%. For people who do not speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 99%. For people who do not speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 97%. For people who speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 99%. For people who speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 57%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent decrease when speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16707, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to speak english correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16708, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with talent in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16709, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between speaking english and talent is -0.02.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that speaking english affects talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16715, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 81%. For people who do not speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 94%. For people who do not speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 83%. For people who speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 92%. For people who speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 75%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent increase when speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 86%. For people who do not speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 97%. For people who do not speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 92%. For people who speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 97%. For people who speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 74%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent increase when speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to speak english correlates with talent case by case according to fame. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with talent in general.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16725, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between speaking english and talent is -0.25.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that speaking english affects talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16729, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between speaking english and talent is -0.01.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that speaking english does not affect talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16730, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 92%. For people who do not speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 93%. For people who do not speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 76%. For people who speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 87%. For people who speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 75%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent decrease when speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16732, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with talent in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16733, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between speaking english and talent is -0.04.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that speaking english does not affect talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16736, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with talent in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to fame.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects talent, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16738, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 81%. For people who do not speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 98%. For people who do not speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 91%. For people who speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 97%. For people who speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 87%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent decrease when speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16739, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nFor people who are famous, the correlation between speaking english and talent is -0.44.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does it mean that speaking english affects talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16743, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 91%. For people who do not speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 97%. For people who do not speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 91%. For people who speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 97%. For people who speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 82%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent increase when speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16744, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on fame. Talent has a direct effect on fame.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 91%. For people who do not speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 97%. For people who do not speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 91%. For people who speak english and are not famous, the probability of talent is 97%. For people who speak english and are famous, the probability of talent is 82%.\nIf we look at people who are famous, does the chance of talent decrease when speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16750, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 20%. The probability of not having a sister and low cholesterol is 65%. The probability of having a sister and low cholesterol is 14%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16751, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 20%. The probability of not having a sister and low cholesterol is 65%. The probability of having a sister and low cholesterol is 14%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16757, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 15%. For patients who do not have a sister, the probability of low cholesterol is 77%. For patients who have a sister, the probability of low cholesterol is 64%.\nIs low cholesterol more likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16767, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 37%. For patients who do not have a sister, the probability of low cholesterol is 66%. For patients who have a sister, the probability of low cholesterol is 43%.\nIs low cholesterol less likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16771, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 57%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 62%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of having a sister is 61%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of having a sister is 28%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 29%. The probability of not having a sister and low cholesterol is 48%. The probability of having a sister and low cholesterol is 14%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16774, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with cholesterol level case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with cholesterol level in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16779, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 54%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 51%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of having a sister is 65%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of having a sister is 31%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 54%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 51%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of having a sister is 65%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of having a sister is 31%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16783, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 35%. For patients who do not have a sister, the probability of low cholesterol is 73%. For patients who have a sister, the probability of low cholesterol is 29%.\nIs low cholesterol more likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16786, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 54%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 52%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of having a sister is 79%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of having a sister is 43%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16791, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with cholesterol level case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with cholesterol level in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16793, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 39%. The probability of not having a sister and low cholesterol is 30%. The probability of having a sister and low cholesterol is 17%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16796, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with cholesterol level case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with cholesterol level in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16800, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with cholesterol level in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how having a sister affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16801, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 11%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 11%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of having a sister is 85%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of having a sister is 51%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16811, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 51%. For patients who do not have a sister, the probability of low cholesterol is 43%. For patients who have a sister, the probability of low cholesterol is 25%.\nIs low cholesterol less likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16813, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with cholesterol level in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how having a sister affects cholesterol level, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16816, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 36%. For patients who do not have a sister, the probability of low cholesterol is 76%. For patients who have a sister, the probability of low cholesterol is 38%.\nIs low cholesterol more likely than high cholesterol overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16818, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 50%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of low cholesterol is 57%. For patients not assigned the drug treatment, the probability of having a sister is 66%. For patients assigned the drug treatment, the probability of having a sister is 6%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of low cholesterol?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16820, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a sister and cholesterol level. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on having a sister. Having a sister has a direct effect on cholesterol level. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 16%. The probability of not having a sister and low cholesterol is 49%. The probability of having a sister and low cholesterol is 7%.\nIs the chance of low cholesterol smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16835, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 97%. The probability of not having a brother and high salary is 1%. The probability of having a brother and high salary is 49%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16837, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 55%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 64%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16841, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 96%. The probability of not having a brother and high salary is 2%. The probability of having a brother and high salary is 62%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16849, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 82%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 24%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 47%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16851, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 82%. The probability of not having a brother and high salary is 4%. The probability of having a brother and high salary is 39%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16853, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 34%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 60%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16861, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16862, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 88%. The probability of not having a brother and high salary is 5%. The probability of having a brother and high salary is 50%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16863, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16864, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 81%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 43%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 72%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 81%. The probability of not having a brother and high salary is 8%. The probability of having a brother and high salary is 59%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16868, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 27%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 41%.\nDoes having a brother positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16869, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 27%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 41%.\nDoes having a brother negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16872, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16876, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16878, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 12%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 26%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16879, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 12%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 26%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 88%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 12%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 26%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16882, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how having a brother affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16883, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 67%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 80%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16885, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 67%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 80%.\nDoes having a brother negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16890, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 27%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 65%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16891, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 27%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 65%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16896, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 97%. The probability of not having a brother and high salary is 1%. The probability of having a brother and high salary is 83%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16899, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 37%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 46%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16901, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 97%. The probability of not having a brother and high salary is 1%. The probability of having a brother and high salary is 45%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16902, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how having a brother affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16908, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 92%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 29%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 56%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16910, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with salary case by case according to skill. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16912, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 18%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 38%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16913, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 18%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 38%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16918, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 90%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 19%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 69%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16920, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 45%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 61%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16921, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 45%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 61%.\nDoes having a brother negatively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16922, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 82%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 45%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 61%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16924, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 24%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 50%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16926, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 93%. The probability of not having a brother and high salary is 2%. The probability of having a brother and high salary is 46%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16929, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 90%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 44%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 54%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16933, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 64%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 79%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16937, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 98%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 64%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 79%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16938, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 98%. The probability of not having a brother and high salary is 1%. The probability of having a brother and high salary is 78%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16941, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 57%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 84%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16949, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 61%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 81%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16951, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 61%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 81%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16953, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 61%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 81%.\nDoes having a brother positively affect salary through skill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16956, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to skill.\nTo understand how having a brother affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16962, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 51%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 75%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16965, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 56%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 70%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see high salary if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16970, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 37%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 54%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16977, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on salary.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 81%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of high salary is 60%. For people who have a brother, the probability of high salary is 66%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 24%. For people without a college degree, the probability of large feet is 85%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of large feet is 48%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16984, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with foot size case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how education level affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 16987, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 59%. For people without a college degree, the probability of large feet is 76%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of large feet is 10%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16988, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 59%. The probability of high school degree or lower and large feet is 31%. The probability of college degree or higher and large feet is 6%.\nIs the chance of large feet larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 16997, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with foot size case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how education level affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of large feet is 40%. For people living close to a college, the probability of large feet is 51%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 78%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 37%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17005, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 43%. The probability of high school degree or lower and large feet is 34%. The probability of college degree or higher and large feet is 15%.\nIs the chance of large feet larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17009, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of large feet is 45%. For people living close to a college, the probability of large feet is 63%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 39%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 13%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 47%. The probability of high school degree or lower and large feet is 32%. The probability of college degree or higher and large feet is 10%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17015, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 36%. The probability of high school degree or lower and large feet is 43%. The probability of college degree or higher and large feet is 10%.\nIs the chance of large feet larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17017, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how education level correlates with foot size case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how education level correlates with foot size in general.\nTo understand how education level affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17018, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 46%. For people without a college degree, the probability of large feet is 88%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of large feet is 43%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17023, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of large feet is 41%. For people living close to a college, the probability of large feet is 59%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 49%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 9%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17025, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 23%. For people without a college degree, the probability of large feet is 79%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of large feet is 29%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17028, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 52%. For people without a college degree, the probability of large feet is 68%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of large feet is 39%.\nIs large feet more likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17029, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 52%. The probability of high school degree or lower and large feet is 33%. The probability of college degree or higher and large feet is 20%.\nIs the chance of large feet larger when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17031, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 55%. For people without a college degree, the probability of large feet is 46%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of large feet is 8%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17034, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of large feet is 39%. For people living close to a college, the probability of large feet is 49%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 57%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 30%.\nWill college degree or higher increase the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17041, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 81%. For people without a college degree, the probability of large feet is 75%. For people with a college degree or higher, the probability of large feet is 40%.\nIs large feet less likely than small feet overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17058, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of college degree or higher is 80%. The probability of high school degree or lower and large feet is 14%. The probability of college degree or higher and large feet is 28%.\nIs the chance of large feet smaller when observing college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17061, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor people living far from a college, the probability of large feet is 42%. For people living close to a college, the probability of large feet is 53%. For people living far from a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 61%. For people living close to a college, the probability of college degree or higher is 34%.\nWill college degree or higher decrease the chance of large feet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17066, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on education level and foot size. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on education level. Education level has a direct effect on foot size. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how education level correlates with foot size in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how education level affects foot size, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17075, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how talent correlates with brown eyes in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how talent affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17077, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 97%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 98%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 92%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 97%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 88%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of brown eyes increase when talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17080, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and brown eyes is -0.08.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent does not affect brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17087, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and brown eyes is -0.01.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent affects brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17094, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how talent correlates with brown eyes case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how talent correlates with brown eyes in general.\nTo understand how talent affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how talent correlates with brown eyes case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how talent correlates with brown eyes in general.\nTo understand how talent affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17104, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 95%. For students who are not talented, the probability of brown eyes is 82%. For students who are talented, the probability of brown eyes is 82%.\nIs brown eyes more likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17106, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 91%. For students who are not talented, the probability of brown eyes is 98%. For students who are talented, the probability of brown eyes is 98%.\nIs brown eyes more likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17112, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and brown eyes is -0.33.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent affects brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 91%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 97%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 89%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 96%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 60%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of brown eyes decrease when talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 91%. For students who are not talented, the probability of brown eyes is 95%. For students who are talented, the probability of brown eyes is 95%.\nIs brown eyes less likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17118, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 86%. For students who are not talented, the probability of brown eyes is 98%. For students who are talented, the probability of brown eyes is 98%.\nIs brown eyes more likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17119, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 86%. For students who are not talented, the probability of brown eyes is 98%. For students who are talented, the probability of brown eyes is 98%.\nIs brown eyes less likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17122, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 87%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 94%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 77%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 91%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 72%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of brown eyes increase when talent?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17126, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 93%. For students who are not talented, the probability of brown eyes is 95%. For students who are talented, the probability of brown eyes is 95%.\nIs brown eyes more likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17127, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 93%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 99%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 93%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 97%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 92%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of brown eyes decrease when talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look at how talent correlates with brown eyes case by case according to elite institution admission status. Method 2: We look directly at how talent correlates with brown eyes in general.\nTo understand how talent affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17131, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and brown eyes is -0.06.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent does not affect brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17140, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 97%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 100%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 87%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 97%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 81%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of brown eyes decrease when talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17146, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and brown eyes is -0.06.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent affects brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17147, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 86%. For students who are not talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 99%. For students who are not talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 94%. For students who are talented and rejected from elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 97%. For students who are talented and accepted to elite institutions, the probability of brown eyes is 91%.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does the chance of brown eyes decrease when talent?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how talent correlates with brown eyes in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how talent affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17152, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 82%. For students who are not talented, the probability of brown eyes is 89%. For students who are talented, the probability of brown eyes is 89%.\nIs brown eyes less likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17156, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 98%. For students who are not talented, the probability of brown eyes is 90%. For students who are talented, the probability of brown eyes is 90%.\nIs brown eyes more likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17159, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nFor students accepted to elite institutions, the correlation between talent and brown eyes is -0.01.\nIf we look at students accepted to elite institutions, does it mean that talent does not affect brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17161, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nThe overall probability of talent is 86%. For students who are not talented, the probability of brown eyes is 96%. For students who are talented, the probability of brown eyes is 96%.\nIs brown eyes more likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17163, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Talent has a direct effect on elite institution admission status. Brown eyes has a direct effect on elite institution admission status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how talent correlates with brown eyes in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to elite institution admission status.\nTo understand how talent affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 58%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 34%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be more likely to see brown eyes if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17170, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how encouragement level correlates with brown eyes in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to studying habit.\nTo understand how encouragement level affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17186, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 85%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 69%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 47%.\nIs brown eyes more likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17209, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 76%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 35%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 49%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 4%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 62%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 2%.\nDoes encouragement level positively affect brown eyes through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17220, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 53%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 31%.\nWill encouragement increase the chance of brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17224, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 92%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 53%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 31%.\nIs brown eyes more likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17234, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 65%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 62%.\nWill encouragement decrease the chance of brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 98%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 65%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 62%.\nIs brown eyes less likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17237, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nMethod 1: We look at how encouragement level correlates with brown eyes case by case according to studying habit. Method 2: We look directly at how encouragement level correlates with brown eyes in general.\nTo understand how encouragement level affects brown eyes, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17240, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 80%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 51%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 47%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 20%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 72%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 22%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through studying habit, would encouragement level negatively affect brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17243, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 61%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 31%.\nWill encouragement decrease the chance of brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17252, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 50%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 39%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be more likely to see brown eyes if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17255, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 98%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 50%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 39%.\nIs brown eyes more likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17260, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 74%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 36%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 50%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 15%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 76%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 28%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through studying habit, would encouragement level positively affect brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17268, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 72%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 46%.\nWill encouragement decrease the chance of brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17272, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 98%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 72%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 46%.\nIs brown eyes less likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 61%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 45%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be more likely to see brown eyes if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17276, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 61%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 45%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be less likely to see brown eyes if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17280, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 83%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 52%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 45%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 21%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 99%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 28%.\nDoes encouragement level negatively affect brown eyes through studying habit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17281, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 83%. For students who are not encouraged and study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 52%. For students who are encouraged and do not study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 45%. For students who are encouraged and study hard, the probability of brown eyes is 21%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 99%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of studying hard is 28%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through studying habit, would encouragement level positively affect brown eyes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 90%. For students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 53%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 39%.\nIs brown eyes less likely than blue eyes overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17296, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 75%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 48%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be less likely to see brown eyes if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17308, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 42%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 25%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be more likely to see brown eyes if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17313, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 92%. The probability of discouragement and brown eyes is 3%. The probability of encouragement and brown eyes is 23%.\nIs the chance of brown eyes smaller when observing encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17317, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 84%. The probability of discouragement and brown eyes is 12%. The probability of encouragement and brown eyes is 47%.\nIs the chance of brown eyes smaller when observing encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17319, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nFor students who are not encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 82%. For students who are encouraged, the probability of brown eyes is 64%.\nFor students who are encouraged, would it be more likely to see brown eyes if the student had received no encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17323, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 91%. The probability of discouragement and brown eyes is 7%. The probability of encouragement and brown eyes is 58%.\nIs the chance of brown eyes larger when observing encouragement?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17324, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Encouragement level has a direct effect on studying habit and brown eyes. Studying habit has a direct effect on brown eyes.\nThe overall probability of encouragement is 91%. The probability of discouragement and brown eyes is 7%. The probability of encouragement and brown eyes is 58%.\nIs the chance of brown eyes smaller when observing encouragement?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17330, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 8%. The probability of non-male gender and being lactose intolerant is 78%. The probability of male gender and being lactose intolerant is 3%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17331, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 51%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 45%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17333, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 51%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 45%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see being lactose intolerant if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17335, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 33%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 63%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 42%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 65%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 59%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 13%.\nDoes gender negatively affect lactose intolerance through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17337, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 13%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 51%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 45%.\nIs being lactose intolerant less likely than not being lactose intolerant overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17339, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 90%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 44%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17341, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 90%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 44%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see being lactose intolerant if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17354, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 52%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 80%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 19%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 46%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 54%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 10%.\nDoes gender positively affect lactose intolerance through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17355, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 3%. The probability of non-male gender and being lactose intolerant is 66%. The probability of male gender and being lactose intolerant is 1%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 43%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 83%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 18%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 53%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 88%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 30%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect lactose intolerance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17365, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how gender affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17371, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 58%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 89%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 32%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 65%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 65%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 29%.\nDoes gender negatively affect lactose intolerance through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17375, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17391, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 6%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 70%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 23%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 52%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 71%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 35%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect lactose intolerance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17392, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 8%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 51%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 33%.\nIs being lactose intolerant more likely than not being lactose intolerant overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 63%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 95%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 37%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 67%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 94%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 48%.\nDoes gender negatively affect lactose intolerance through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17408, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 63%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 95%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 37%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 67%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 94%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 48%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect lactose intolerance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17411, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 62%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 30%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see being lactose intolerant if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17413, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how gender affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17418, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 1%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 68%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 22%.\nIs being lactose intolerant less likely than not being lactose intolerant overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 17%. The probability of non-male gender and being lactose intolerant is 33%. The probability of male gender and being lactose intolerant is 5%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17430, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 59%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 88%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 28%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 57%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 52%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 22%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect lactose intolerance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17433, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 68%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 59%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see being lactose intolerant if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17434, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 47%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 71%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 40%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 69%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 88%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 66%.\nDoes gender positively affect lactose intolerance through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17440, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 88%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 13%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see being lactose intolerant if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 43%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 90%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 12%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 38%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 96%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 3%.\nDoes gender positively affect lactose intolerance through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17443, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 11%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 88%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 13%.\nIs being lactose intolerant more likely than not being lactose intolerant overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17450, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 60%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 7%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17452, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 16%. The probability of non-male gender and being lactose intolerant is 51%. The probability of male gender and being lactose intolerant is 1%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17454, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how gender affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17456, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 25%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 60%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 21%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 72%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 48%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 17%.\nDoes gender negatively affect lactose intolerance through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17458, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 3%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 42%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 29%.\nIs being lactose intolerant more likely than not being lactose intolerant overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17460, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how gender affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17461, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 74%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 21%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17469, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 17%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 70%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 8%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 51%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 75%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 14%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender negatively affect lactose intolerance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17471, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 6%. The probability of non-male gender and being lactose intolerant is 53%. The probability of male gender and being lactose intolerant is 1%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17474, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 47%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 89%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 6%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 63%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 61%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 38%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect lactose intolerance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17477, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 58%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 45%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17479, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17481, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 81%. For individuals who are male, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 42%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see being lactose intolerant if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17483, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 54%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 93%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 33%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 67%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of competitive department is 70%. For individuals who are male, the probability of competitive department is 25%.\nDoes gender negatively affect lactose intolerance through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17488, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17493, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and lactose intolerance. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how gender affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17502, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 45%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 64%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 72%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 90%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 27%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 55%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 54%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 82%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 15%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17505, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 63%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 80%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 34%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 56%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 78%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 100%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 42%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 70%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 20%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 40%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 32%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17517, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 43%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 74%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see freckles if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17519, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 41%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 64%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 64%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 87%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 8%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 39%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 44%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 72%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 1%.\nDoes gender positively affect freckles through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17521, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 41%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 64%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 64%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 87%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 8%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 39%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 44%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 72%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 1%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through department competitiveness, would gender positively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17528, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 97%. The probability of non-male gender and freckles is 2%. The probability of male gender and freckles is 47%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 38%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 40%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see freckles if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17532, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 26%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 54%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 27%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 53%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 34%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 76%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 46%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 67%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 16%.\nDoes gender positively affect freckles through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17549, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 68%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 38%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see freckles if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17559, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 6%. The probability of non-male gender and freckles is 52%. The probability of male gender and freckles is 5%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17566, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 11%. The probability of non-male gender and freckles is 45%. The probability of male gender and freckles is 5%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17576, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 82%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 49%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17580, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 91%. The probability of non-male gender and freckles is 8%. The probability of male gender and freckles is 44%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17595, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 79%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 39%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be more likely to see freckles if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 60%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 90%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 34%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 58%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 61%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 91%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 19%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 48%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 6%.\nDoes gender negatively affect freckles through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17600, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 59%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 55%.\nWill male gender decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17602, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 45%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 68%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 42%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 69%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 56%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 85%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 43%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 80%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 13%.\nDoes gender positively affect freckles through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17604, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 2%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 59%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 55%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 41%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 74%.\nFor individuals who are male, would it be less likely to see freckles if the individual had not been male?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17609, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 13%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 41%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 74%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 13%. The probability of non-male gender and freckles is 36%. The probability of male gender and freckles is 9%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17615, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 62%. For individuals who are not male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 81%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a non-competitive department, the probability of freckles is 37%. For individuals who are male and applicants to a competitive department, the probability of freckles is 56%. For individuals who are not male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 48%. For individuals who are not male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 81%. For individuals who are male and out-of-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 14%. For individuals who are male and in-state residents, the probability of competitive department is 60%. The overall probability of in-state residency is 6%.\nDoes gender positively affect freckles through department competitiveness?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17621, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 16%. The probability of non-male gender and freckles is 48%. The probability of male gender and freckles is 10%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 11%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 48%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 79%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17629, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 11%. The probability of non-male gender and freckles is 43%. The probability of male gender and freckles is 9%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17635, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 84%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 74%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 42%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how gender correlates with freckles case by case according to department competitiveness. Method 2: We look directly at how gender correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how gender affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17641, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how gender correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to department competitiveness.\nTo understand how gender affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 68%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 38%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17649, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nFor individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 37%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 68%.\nWill male gender increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17652, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and freckles. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on freckles. Residency status is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of male gender is 2%. For individuals who are not male, the probability of freckles is 37%. For individuals who are male, the probability of freckles is 68%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17656, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 70%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 48%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 44%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 17%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 74%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 45%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 49%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 18%. The overall probability of high skill level is 95%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would liking spicy food negatively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17659, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to occupation.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17664, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 23%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 1%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 48%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 28%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 49%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 19%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 75%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 40%. The overall probability of high skill level is 98%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would liking spicy food positively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17666, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 83%. For individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 19%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 40%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17673, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 5%. For individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 53%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 35%.\nIs high salary more likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17674, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 5%. The probability of not liking spicy food and high salary is 50%. The probability of liking spicy food and high salary is 2%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17677, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 65%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 35%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 53%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 29%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 70%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 35%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 74%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 48%. The overall probability of high skill level is 92%.\nDoes liking spicy food positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17690, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 3%. The probability of not liking spicy food and high salary is 46%. The probability of liking spicy food and high salary is 1%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17695, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 44%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 19%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 44%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 19%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 71%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 32%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 65%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 37%. The overall probability of high skill level is 86%.\nDoes liking spicy food negatively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17697, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 44%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 19%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 44%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 19%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 71%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 32%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 65%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 37%. The overall probability of high skill level is 86%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would liking spicy food negatively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17701, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 81%. For individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 43%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 63%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17703, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 52%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 37%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17705, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 52%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 37%.\nFor individuals who like spicy food, would it be less likely to see high salary if the individual did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17706, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 65%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 41%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 42%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 21%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 77%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 53%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 50%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 23%. The overall probability of high skill level is 97%.\nDoes liking spicy food positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17711, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 58%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 41%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 65%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 38%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 100%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 45%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 72%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 48%. The overall probability of high skill level is 91%.\nDoes liking spicy food positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 82%. For individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 29%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 49%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17718, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 82%. The probability of not liking spicy food and high salary is 5%. The probability of liking spicy food and high salary is 41%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 52%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 35%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 67%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 46%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 42%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 23%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 99%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 70%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 64%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 38%. The overall probability of high skill level is 92%.\nDoes liking spicy food positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17723, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 44%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 29%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17724, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 44%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 29%.\nFor individuals who like spicy food, would it be more likely to see high salary if the individual did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17731, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 38%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 48%.\nFor individuals who like spicy food, would it be less likely to see high salary if the individual did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17732, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 40%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 20%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 61%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 39%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 42%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 9%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 89%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 58%. The overall probability of high skill level is 93%.\nDoes liking spicy food positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17734, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 63%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 42%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 38%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 21%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 70%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 48%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 40%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 19%. The overall probability of high skill level is 82%.\nDoes liking spicy food negatively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17735, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 16%. For individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 52%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 34%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17740, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 17%. For individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 36%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 31%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17747, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 96%. The probability of not liking spicy food and high salary is 1%. The probability of liking spicy food and high salary is 49%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17748, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how liking spicy food correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17770, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how liking spicy food correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17772, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 47%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 40%.\nFor individuals who like spicy food, would it be less likely to see high salary if the individual did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 51%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 26%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 43%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 28%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 44%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 11%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 57%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 16%. The overall probability of high skill level is 85%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would liking spicy food negatively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17782, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 2%. The probability of not liking spicy food and high salary is 45%. The probability of liking spicy food and high salary is 1%.\nIs the chance of high salary smaller when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17783, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 38%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 34%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 38%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 34%.\nFor individuals who like spicy food, would it be more likely to see high salary if the individual did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17785, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 38%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 34%.\nFor individuals who like spicy food, would it be less likely to see high salary if the individual did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17788, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to occupation.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17790, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 40%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 18%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 62%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 40%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 58%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 18%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 79%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 51%. The overall probability of high skill level is 97%.\nDoes liking spicy food negatively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17793, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 39%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 56%.\nWill liking spicy food increase the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17794, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 39%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 56%.\nFor individuals who like spicy food, would it be less likely to see high salary if the individual did not like spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17802, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how liking spicy food correlates with salary case by case according to occupation. Method 2: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with salary in general.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17803, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with salary in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to occupation.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects salary, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17804, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 46%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 31%.\nWill liking spicy food decrease the chance of high salary?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17805, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 62%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 38%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 37%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 16%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 92%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 63%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 45%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 25%. The overall probability of high skill level is 82%.\nDoes liking spicy food positively affect salary through occupation?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17807, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nFor individuals who do not like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 62%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 38%. For individuals who like spicy food and blue-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 37%. For individuals who like spicy food and white-collar workers, the probability of high salary is 16%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 92%. For individuals who do not like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 63%. For individuals who like spicy food and with low skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 45%. For individuals who like spicy food and with high skill levels, the probability of white-collar job is 25%. The overall probability of high skill level is 82%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through occupation, would liking spicy food positively affect salary?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17809, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 13%. For individuals who do not like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 46%. For individuals who like spicy food, the probability of high salary is 31%.\nIs high salary less likely than low salary overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17810, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 13%. The probability of not liking spicy food and high salary is 40%. The probability of liking spicy food and high salary is 4%.\nIs the chance of high salary larger when observing liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17817, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 41%. For people who do not drink coffee and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 93%. For people who do not drink coffee and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 69%. For people who drink coffee and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 93%. For people who drink coffee and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 75%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones increase when drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17819, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with broken bones in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hospitalization status.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17823, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 44%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of broken bones is 96%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of broken bones is 96%.\nIs broken bones less likely than no broken bones overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17824, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between drinking coffee and broken bones is -0.02.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that drinking coffee does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17827, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between drinking coffee and broken bones is 0.10.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that drinking coffee affects broken bones?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17829, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with broken bones case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with broken bones in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17830, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with broken bones in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hospitalization status.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17843, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 51%. For people who do not drink coffee and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 98%. For people who do not drink coffee and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 91%. For people who drink coffee and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 99%. For people who drink coffee and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 94%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones increase when drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17846, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with broken bones in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hospitalization status.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17850, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between drinking coffee and broken bones is 0.09.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that drinking coffee affects broken bones?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17854, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between drinking coffee and broken bones is -0.25.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that drinking coffee does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17863, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between drinking coffee and broken bones is -0.16.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that drinking coffee does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17864, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 53%. For people who do not drink coffee and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 95%. For people who do not drink coffee and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 85%. For people who drink coffee and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 94%. For people who drink coffee and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 71%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones increase when drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 53%. For people who do not drink coffee and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 95%. For people who do not drink coffee and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 85%. For people who drink coffee and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 94%. For people who drink coffee and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 71%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones decrease when drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17868, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 94%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of broken bones is 95%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of broken bones is 95%.\nIs broken bones less likely than no broken bones overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17877, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with broken bones in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hospitalization status.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17879, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 84%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of broken bones is 82%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of broken bones is 82%.\nIs broken bones less likely than no broken bones overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between drinking coffee and broken bones is -0.12.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that drinking coffee does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17882, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 84%. For people who do not drink coffee and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 92%. For people who do not drink coffee and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 71%. For people who drink coffee and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 88%. For people who drink coffee and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 58%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones decrease when drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17884, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 82%. For people who do not drink coffee and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 90%. For people who do not drink coffee and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 75%. For people who drink coffee and non-hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 91%. For people who drink coffee and hospitalized individuals, the probability of broken bones is 76%.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does the chance of broken bones decrease when drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between drinking coffee and broken bones is -0.13.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that drinking coffee does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17888, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nMethod 1: We look at how drinking coffee correlates with broken bones case by case according to hospitalization status. Method 2: We look directly at how drinking coffee correlates with broken bones in general.\nTo understand how drinking coffee affects broken bones, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17891, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nThe overall probability of drinking coffee is 45%. For people who do not drink coffee, the probability of broken bones is 97%. For people who drink coffee, the probability of broken bones is 97%.\nIs broken bones less likely than no broken bones overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17895, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on hospitalization status. Broken bones has a direct effect on hospitalization status.\nFor hospitalized individuals, the correlation between drinking coffee and broken bones is -0.18.\nIf we look at hospitalized individuals, does it mean that drinking coffee does not affect broken bones?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17900, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between liking spicy food and attractive appearance is -0.01.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that liking spicy food affects attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17905, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 80%. For people who do not like spicy food and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 93%. For people who do not like spicy food and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 73%. For people who like spicy food and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 90%. For people who like spicy food and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 56%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance increase when liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17908, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look at how liking spicy food correlates with appearance case by case according to relationship status. Method 2: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with appearance in general.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects appearance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17915, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 16%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of attractive appearance is 90%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of attractive appearance is 90%.\nIs attractive appearance more likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17916, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with appearance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to relationship status.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects appearance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17918, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between liking spicy food and attractive appearance is 0.33.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that liking spicy food does not affect attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17922, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 8%. For people who do not like spicy food and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 47%. For people who do not like spicy food and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 6%. For people who like spicy food and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 26%. For people who like spicy food and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 2%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance decrease when liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17925, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between liking spicy food and attractive appearance is -0.07.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that liking spicy food affects attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17929, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between liking spicy food and attractive appearance is -0.11.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that liking spicy food affects attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17933, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with appearance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to relationship status.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects appearance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between liking spicy food and attractive appearance is 0.02.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that liking spicy food does not affect attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17940, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between liking spicy food and attractive appearance is -0.03.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that liking spicy food does not affect attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17949, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 20%. For people who do not like spicy food and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 27%. For people who do not like spicy food and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 5%. For people who like spicy food and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 14%. For people who like spicy food and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 4%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance decrease when liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17950, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 16%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of attractive appearance is 92%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of attractive appearance is 92%.\nIs attractive appearance more likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between liking spicy food and attractive appearance is -0.01.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that liking spicy food affects attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nMethod 1: We look at how liking spicy food correlates with appearance case by case according to relationship status. Method 2: We look directly at how liking spicy food correlates with appearance in general.\nTo understand how liking spicy food affects appearance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17970, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 17%. For people who do not like spicy food and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 22%. For people who do not like spicy food and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 7%. For people who like spicy food and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 13%. For people who like spicy food and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 5%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance decrease when liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17973, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nFor people in a relationship, the correlation between liking spicy food and attractive appearance is -0.01.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does it mean that liking spicy food affects attractive appearance?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 94%. For people who do not like spicy food, the probability of attractive appearance is 97%. For people who like spicy food, the probability of attractive appearance is 97%.\nIs attractive appearance more likely than unattractive appearance overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 17981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on relationship status. Appearance has a direct effect on relationship status.\nThe overall probability of liking spicy food is 19%. For people who do not like spicy food and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 94%. For people who do not like spicy food and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 74%. For people who like spicy food and single people, the probability of attractive appearance is 95%. For people who like spicy food and in a relationship, the probability of attractive appearance is 76%.\nIf we look at people in a relationship, does the chance of attractive appearance decrease when liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 17991, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 62%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 47%.\nWill intelligent parents decrease the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 83%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 55%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 52%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 24%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 71%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 56%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 29%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 47%. The overall probability of confounder active is 42%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would parents' intelligence negatively affect lactose intolerance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18004, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 19%. For children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 65%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 42%.\nIs being lactose intolerant less likely than not being lactose intolerant overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18015, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how parents' intelligence correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18017, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 7%. For children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 86%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 35%.\nIs being lactose intolerant more likely than not being lactose intolerant overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18020, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 86%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 48%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be more likely to see being lactose intolerant if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18025, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 9%. For children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 86%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 48%.\nIs being lactose intolerant less likely than not being lactose intolerant overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18030, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 73%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 46%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be less likely to see being lactose intolerant if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18031, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 95%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 70%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 59%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 33%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 91%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 88%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 59%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 46%. The overall probability of confounder active is 55%.\nDoes parents' intelligence positively affect lactose intolerance through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18038, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 78%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 54%.\nWill intelligent parents decrease the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18040, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 2%. The probability of unintelligent parents and being lactose intolerant is 76%. The probability of intelligent parents and being lactose intolerant is 1%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant smaller when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18043, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 77%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 65%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 28%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 17%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 93%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 63%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 57%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 29%. The overall probability of confounder active is 44%.\nDoes parents' intelligence positively affect lactose intolerance through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18048, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 71%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 41%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be more likely to see being lactose intolerant if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18060, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 14%. The probability of unintelligent parents and being lactose intolerant is 49%. The probability of intelligent parents and being lactose intolerant is 5%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant larger when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18061, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how parents' intelligence correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18062, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 88%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 48%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be less likely to see being lactose intolerant if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18063, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 92%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 85%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 51%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 47%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 80%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 34%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 44%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 12%. The overall probability of confounder active is 52%.\nDoes parents' intelligence positively affect lactose intolerance through parents' social status?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18066, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with lactose intolerance in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to parents' social status.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18075, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 55%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 17%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be more likely to see being lactose intolerant if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18080, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 59%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 29%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 33%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 4%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 74%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 72%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 45%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 26%. The overall probability of confounder active is 42%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would parents' intelligence negatively affect lactose intolerance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18087, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 3%. The probability of unintelligent parents and being lactose intolerant is 45%. The probability of intelligent parents and being lactose intolerant is 0%.\nIs the chance of being lactose intolerant smaller when observing intelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 76%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 37%.\nWill intelligent parents increase the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18107, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how parents' intelligence correlates with lactose intolerance case by case according to parents' social status. Method 2: We look directly at how parents' intelligence correlates with lactose intolerance in general.\nTo understand how parents' intelligence affects lactose intolerance, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18127, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 52%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 35%.\nFor children with intelligent parents, would it be less likely to see being lactose intolerant if the child had unintelligent parents?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of intelligent parents is 14%. For children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 52%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 35%.\nIs being lactose intolerant more likely than not being lactose intolerant overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18145, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 86%. For children with intelligent parents, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 47%.\nWill intelligent parents increase the chance of being lactose intolerant?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18147, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Parents' intelligence has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and lactose intolerance. Parents' social status has a direct effect on lactose intolerance. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nFor children with unintelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 89%. For children with unintelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 86%. For children with intelligent parents and with low parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 45%. For children with intelligent parents and with high parental social status, the probability of being lactose intolerant is 47%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 92%. For children with unintelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 70%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder inactive, the probability of high parental social status is 55%. For children with intelligent parents and confounder active, the probability of high parental social status is 24%. The overall probability of confounder active is 49%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through parents' social status, would parents' intelligence negatively affect lactose intolerance?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18150, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 40%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 74%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see freckles if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18156, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 46%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 25%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 49%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 21%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 24%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 66%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking positively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18157, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 85%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 6%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 26%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 55%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 24%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 81%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 59%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 2%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 59%.\nDoes smoking positively affect freckles through effort?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18173, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 83%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 51%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 37%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18184, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to effort.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18188, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 68%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 45%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 84%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 33%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 19%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 58%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking negatively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18191, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with freckles case by case according to effort. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18197, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 92%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 50%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 80%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 36%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 17%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 74%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking negatively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18203, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 93%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 44%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 66%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18204, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 93%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 44%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 66%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18205, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 93%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 3%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 62%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18217, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 29%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 62%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18227, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 81%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 13%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 34%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18228, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 71%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 58%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see freckles if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18232, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 94%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 5%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 54%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18234, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 38%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 9%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 65%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 38%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 20%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 79%.\nDoes smoking positively affect freckles through effort?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18235, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 38%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 9%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 65%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 38%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 20%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 79%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect freckles through effort?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 38%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 9%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 65%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 38%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 20%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 79%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking positively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18237, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 82%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 32%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 44%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18246, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 87%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 88%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 67%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18261, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with freckles case by case according to effort. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18263, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 86%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 58%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see freckles if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18266, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 89%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 37%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 81%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 46%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 5%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 65%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect freckles through effort?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18271, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with freckles case by case according to effort. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18280, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 91%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 65%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see freckles if the student had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18283, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 98%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 91%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 65%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18293, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 79%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 48%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 90%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 45%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 40%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 79%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect freckles through effort?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18294, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 79%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 48%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 90%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 45%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 40%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 79%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking positively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18296, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 90%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 67%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 55%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18297, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 90%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 6%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 50%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18299, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 53%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 39%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18303, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 53%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 32%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 58%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 23%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 2%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 56%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect freckles through effort?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18305, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 87%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 53%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 39%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18306, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 87%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 7%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 34%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18316, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to effort.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 84%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 63%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 57%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18320, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 48%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 71%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18322, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and freckles. Effort has a direct effect on freckles.\nFor nonsmokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 49%. For nonsmokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 27%. For smokers and are lazy, the probability of freckles is 87%. For smokers and are hard-working, the probability of freckles is 56%. For nonsmokers, the probability of being hard-working is 4%. For smokers, the probability of being hard-working is 51%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through effort, would smoking negatively affect freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18325, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 43%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 72%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 74%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 93%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 79%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 50%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 52%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 20%. The overall probability of smoker is 85%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would playing card games positively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18326, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 43%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 72%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 74%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 93%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 79%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 50%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 52%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 20%. The overall probability of smoker is 85%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would playing card games negatively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18329, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how playing card games correlates with lifespan in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to diabetes.\nTo understand how playing card games affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 51%. For people who play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 66%.\nFor people who play card games, would it be less likely to see long lifespan if the person did not play card games?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18333, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 32%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 60%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 62%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 81%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 57%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 68%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 31%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 19%. The overall probability of smoker is 88%.\nDoes playing card games positively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18334, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 32%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 60%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 62%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 81%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 57%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 68%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 31%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 19%. The overall probability of smoker is 88%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would playing card games positively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18336, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of playing card games is 84%. The probability of not playing card games and long lifespan is 8%. The probability of playing card games and long lifespan is 55%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan smaller when observing playing card games?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18337, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 81%. For people who play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 70%.\nWill playing card games decrease the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18339, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of playing card games is 90%. For people who do not play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 81%. For people who play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 70%.\nIs long lifespan less likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18346, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how playing card games correlates with lifespan in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to diabetes.\nTo understand how playing card games affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18357, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 40%. For people who play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 58%.\nFor people who play card games, would it be more likely to see long lifespan if the person did not play card games?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18364, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of playing card games is 82%. The probability of not playing card games and long lifespan is 9%. The probability of playing card games and long lifespan is 52%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan smaller when observing playing card games?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18369, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 43%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 74%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 48%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 72%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 76%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 74%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 39%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 31%. The overall probability of smoker is 92%.\nDoes playing card games positively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 43%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 74%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 48%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 72%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 76%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 74%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 39%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 31%. The overall probability of smoker is 92%.\nDoes playing card games negatively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18373, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of playing card games is 96%. The probability of not playing card games and long lifespan is 3%. The probability of playing card games and long lifespan is 54%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan larger when observing playing card games?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18374, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of playing card games is 96%. The probability of not playing card games and long lifespan is 3%. The probability of playing card games and long lifespan is 54%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan smaller when observing playing card games?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18377, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 23%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 45%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 53%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 71%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 97%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 53%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 61%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 26%. The overall probability of smoker is 92%.\nDoes playing card games positively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18380, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of playing card games is 96%. For people who do not play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 36%. For people who play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 58%.\nIs long lifespan more likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18384, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 56%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 91%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 55%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 84%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 77%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 88%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 45%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 28%. The overall probability of smoker is 91%.\nDoes playing card games negatively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18385, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 56%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 91%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 55%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 84%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 77%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 88%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 45%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 28%. The overall probability of smoker is 91%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would playing card games positively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18388, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 56%. For people who play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 70%.\nFor people who play card games, would it be more likely to see long lifespan if the person did not play card games?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18390, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 42%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 63%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 63%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 86%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 87%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 59%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 57%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 28%. The overall probability of smoker is 81%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would playing card games negatively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18398, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how playing card games correlates with lifespan case by case according to diabetes. Method 2: We look directly at how playing card games correlates with lifespan in general.\nTo understand how playing card games affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18399, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how playing card games correlates with lifespan in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to diabetes.\nTo understand how playing card games affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18405, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of playing card games is 86%. For people who do not play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 73%. For people who play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 63%.\nIs long lifespan more likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of playing card games is 85%. The probability of not playing card games and long lifespan is 10%. The probability of playing card games and long lifespan is 42%.\nIs the chance of long lifespan larger when observing playing card games?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18424, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 50%. For people who play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 64%.\nWill playing card games decrease the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 50%. For people who play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 64%.\nFor people who play card games, would it be less likely to see long lifespan if the person did not play card games?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18433, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of playing card games is 99%. For people who do not play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 49%. For people who play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 60%.\nIs long lifespan more likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 41%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 61%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 63%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 86%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 84%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 60%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 56%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 25%. The overall probability of smoker is 95%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through diabetes, would playing card games negatively affect lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18452, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of playing card games is 91%. For people who do not play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 85%. For people who play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 64%.\nIs long lifespan less likely than short lifespan overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18455, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 47%. For people who play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 63%.\nWill playing card games increase the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18456, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 35%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 58%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 58%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 83%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 80%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 50%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 53%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 17%. The overall probability of smoker is 96%.\nDoes playing card games positively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18457, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 35%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 58%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 58%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 83%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 80%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 50%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 53%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 17%. The overall probability of smoker is 96%.\nDoes playing card games negatively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18466, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how playing card games correlates with lifespan in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to diabetes.\nTo understand how playing card games affects lifespan, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18483, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 53%. For people who play card games, the probability of long lifespan is 74%.\nWill playing card games decrease the chance of long lifespan?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18486, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Playing card games has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nFor people who do not play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 34%. For people who do not play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 64%. For people who play card games and without diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 68%. For people who play card games and with diabetes, the probability of long lifespan is 92%. For people who do not play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 95%. For people who do not play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 99%. For people who play card games and nonsmokers, the probability of having diabetes is 58%. For people who play card games and smokers, the probability of having diabetes is 46%. The overall probability of smoker is 95%.\nDoes playing card games negatively affect lifespan through diabetes?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18493, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 19%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 46%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 57%.\nIs curly hair less likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18494, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 19%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 37%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 11%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18495, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18496, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 73%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 54%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be less likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18498, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 20%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 58%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 11%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18499, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 20%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 58%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 11%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18501, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18503, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 47%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 57%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18504, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 17%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 47%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 57%.\nIs curly hair less likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18507, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 56%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 39%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 56%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 39%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be less likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18514, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 58%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 32%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18518, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 46%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 61%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18522, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 8%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 43%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 5%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 5%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 49%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 32%.\nIs curly hair less likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18526, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 5%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 46%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 2%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18528, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 75%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 46%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18529, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 11%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 67%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 5%.\nIs the chance of curly hair smaller when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 68%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 49%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18531, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 68%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 49%.\nWill citrus intake decrease the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18532, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 68%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 49%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18539, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18540, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 38%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 13%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18541, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 12%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 34%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 2%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18546, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18549, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 33%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 17%.\nWill citrus intake decrease the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18550, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 33%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 17%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18551, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18559, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 60%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 74%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18561, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 3%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 60%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 74%.\nIs curly hair less likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18562, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 65%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 34%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18567, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 56%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 74%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18573, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 49%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 38%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be less likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18574, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 49%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 38%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18575, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 16%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 49%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 38%.\nIs curly hair more likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18576, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 16%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 41%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 6%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18579, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 61%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 45%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18580, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 61%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 45%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18581, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 13%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 61%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 45%.\nIs curly hair more likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 76%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 60%.\nDoes eating citrus positively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 76%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 60%.\nDoes eating citrus negatively affect curly hair through vitmain C?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18588, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 10%. The probability of absence of citrus and curly hair is 50%. The probability of citrus intake and curly hair is 4%.\nIs the chance of curly hair larger when observing citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18594, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 6%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 54%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 36%.\nIs curly hair less likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18598, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 74%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 63%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be less likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18605, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nThe overall probability of citrus intake is 8%. For patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 68%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 56%.\nIs curly hair less likely than straight hair overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18606, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair case by case according to vitmain C. Method 2: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18608, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 19%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 16%.\nFor patients consuming citrus, would it be more likely to see curly hair if the patient had not consumed citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nFor patients not consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 72%. For patients consuming citrus, the probability of curly hair is 28%.\nWill citrus intake increase the chance of curly hair?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18614, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how eating citrus correlates with curly hair in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vitmain C.\nTo understand how eating citrus affects curly hair, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18616, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 82%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of increased price is 38%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of increased price is 74%.\nIs increased price less likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18622, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 83%. The probability of no full moon and increased price is 9%. The probability of full moon and increased price is 50%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18623, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 85%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 79%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of full moon is 67%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of full moon is 45%.\nWill full moon increase the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 66%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of increased price is 65%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of increased price is 94%.\nIs increased price less likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 36%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 37%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of full moon is 62%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of full moon is 67%.\nWill full moon increase the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 66%. The probability of no full moon and increased price is 14%. The probability of full moon and increased price is 47%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18634, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 59%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 40%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of full moon is 60%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of full moon is 8%.\nWill full moon increase the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 59%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of increased price is 38%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of increased price is 72%.\nIs increased price less likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18637, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 59%. The probability of no full moon and increased price is 15%. The probability of full moon and increased price is 43%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 75%. The probability of no full moon and increased price is 20%. The probability of full moon and increased price is 45%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18641, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 75%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 65%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of full moon is 96%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of full moon is 52%.\nWill full moon decrease the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how full moon correlates with price case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how full moon correlates with price in general.\nTo understand how full moon affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18643, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 93%. The probability of no full moon and increased price is 6%. The probability of full moon and increased price is 87%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18644, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 87%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of increased price is 40%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of increased price is 82%.\nIs increased price more likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18647, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how full moon correlates with price in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how full moon affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18654, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 70%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of increased price is 33%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of increased price is 84%.\nIs increased price more likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18655, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 70%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of increased price is 33%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of increased price is 84%.\nIs increased price less likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18663, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 66%. The probability of no full moon and increased price is 29%. The probability of full moon and increased price is 40%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18670, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 57%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of increased price is 47%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of increased price is 76%.\nIs increased price more likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18671, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 57%. The probability of no full moon and increased price is 20%. The probability of full moon and increased price is 43%.\nIs the chance of increased price larger when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 69%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of increased price is 45%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of increased price is 74%.\nIs increased price more likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18686, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nFor farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 51%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of increased price is 42%. For farms with reduced crop yield per acre, the probability of full moon is 73%. For farms with increased crop yield per acre, the probability of full moon is 45%.\nWill full moon increase the chance of increased price?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18692, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 63%. For situations where there is no full moon, the probability of increased price is 41%. For situations where there is a full moon, the probability of increased price is 72%.\nIs increased price less likely than reduced price overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of full moon is 63%. The probability of no full moon and increased price is 15%. The probability of full moon and increased price is 45%.\nIs the chance of increased price smaller when observing full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18694, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how full moon correlates with price in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to demand.\nTo understand how full moon affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on full moon and price. Yield per acre has a direct effect on full moon. Full moon has a direct effect on price. Demand is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how full moon correlates with price case by case according to demand. Method 2: We look directly at how full moon correlates with price in general.\nTo understand how full moon affects price, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18708, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 40%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 43%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 59%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts more likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18711, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 40%. The probability of receives no treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 26%. The probability of receives treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 24%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 94%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 61%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 34%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 0%. The overall probability of male gender is 48%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18726, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 55%. The probability of receives no treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 14%. The probability of receives treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 39%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18728, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 97%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 66%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 39%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 7%. The overall probability of male gender is 48%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18730, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 80%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 67%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 19%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 4%. The overall probability of male gender is 41%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18733, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 59%. The probability of receives no treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 10%. The probability of receives treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 38%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18735, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 47%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 37%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 52%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts more likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18736, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18739, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 93%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 62%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 35%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 4%. The overall probability of male gender is 58%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18742, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 49%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 32%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 71%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts more likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18745, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how treatment affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18753, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18754, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 97%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 67%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 41%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 9%. The overall probability of male gender is 58%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18760, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18761, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 98%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 67%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 41%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 10%. The overall probability of male gender is 43%.\nWill receives treatment decrease the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18763, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how treatment affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18767, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 56%. The probability of receives no treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 8%. The probability of receives treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 36%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 52%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 46%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 64%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18776, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 98%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 87%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 34%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 14%. The overall probability of male gender is 43%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 98%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 64%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 39%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 9%. The overall probability of male gender is 40%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18781, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 57%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 46%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 61%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18782, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18785, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 45%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 31%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 73%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18787, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18789, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 42%. The probability of receives no treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 21%. The probability of receives treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 22%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18790, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 42%. The probability of receives no treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 21%. The probability of receives treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 22%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18791, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nMethod 1: We look at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how treatment correlates with peanut allergy in general.\nTo understand how treatment affects peanut allergy, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18794, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 45%. The probability of receives no treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 15%. The probability of receives treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 31%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18795, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 45%. The probability of receives no treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 15%. The probability of receives treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 31%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts smaller when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18797, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 94%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 61%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 35%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 5%. The overall probability of male gender is 40%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be less likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18799, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 84%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 71%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 21%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 3%. The overall probability of male gender is 54%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18800, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 47%. The probability of receives no treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 13%. The probability of receives treatment and being allergic to peanuts is 31%.\nIs the chance of being allergic to peanuts larger when observing receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18802, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 98%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 64%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 36%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 2%. The overall probability of male gender is 48%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18807, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 78%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 62%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 13%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 2%. The overall probability of male gender is 57%.\nFor patients receiving treatment, would it be more likely to see being allergic to peanuts if the patient had received no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18810, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nFor patients who are not male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 99%. For patients who are not male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 66%. For patients who are male and not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 35%. For patients who are male and receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 2%. The overall probability of male gender is 52%.\nWill receives treatment increase the chance of being allergic to peanuts?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18812, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on treatment and peanut allergy. Treatment has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nThe overall probability of receives treatment is 50%. For patients not receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 39%. For patients receiving treatment, the probability of being allergic to peanuts is 60%.\nIs being allergic to peanuts less likely than not being allergic to peanuts overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18818, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 37%. The probability of low hospital bill and thick lips is 23%. The probability of high hospital bill and thick lips is 25%.\nIs the chance of thick lips smaller when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18819, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 89%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 76%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 24%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 10%. The overall probability of old age is 42%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be less likely to see thick lips if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18828, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 53%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 34%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 72%.\nIs thick lips less likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18836, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with lip thickness case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with lip thickness in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18839, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 55%. The probability of low hospital bill and thick lips is 11%. The probability of high hospital bill and thick lips is 32%.\nIs the chance of thick lips smaller when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18842, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 84%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 69%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 23%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 10%. The overall probability of old age is 54%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see thick lips if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18844, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 47%. The probability of low hospital bill and thick lips is 13%. The probability of high hospital bill and thick lips is 32%.\nIs the chance of thick lips smaller when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18845, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 96%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 75%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 25%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 5%. The overall probability of old age is 52%.\nWill high hospital bill increase the chance of thick lips?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18846, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 96%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 75%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 25%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 5%. The overall probability of old age is 52%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see thick lips if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18847, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 96%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 75%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 25%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 5%. The overall probability of old age is 52%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be less likely to see thick lips if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18854, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 63%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 27%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 58%.\nIs thick lips less likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18857, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with lip thickness in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18861, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 49%. The probability of low hospital bill and thick lips is 20%. The probability of high hospital bill and thick lips is 31%.\nIs the chance of thick lips larger when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18864, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 45%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 24%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 60%.\nIs thick lips less likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18870, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 60%. For patients who pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 39%. For people who pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 62%.\nIs thick lips less likely than thin lips overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18872, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with lip thickness case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with lip thickness in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18877, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 96%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 75%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 23%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 3%. The overall probability of old age is 52%.\nWill high hospital bill increase the chance of thick lips?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18878, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 52%. The probability of low hospital bill and thick lips is 17%. The probability of high hospital bill and thick lips is 30%.\nIs the chance of thick lips larger when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18881, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 96%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 74%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 24%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 2%. The overall probability of old age is 40%.\nWill high hospital bill decrease the chance of thick lips?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18882, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 96%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 74%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 24%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 2%. The overall probability of old age is 40%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see thick lips if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18884, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with lip thickness in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 91%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 75%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 29%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 16%. The overall probability of old age is 41%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see thick lips if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 91%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 75%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 29%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 16%. The overall probability of old age is 41%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be less likely to see thick lips if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18888, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 55%. The probability of low hospital bill and thick lips is 17%. The probability of high hospital bill and thick lips is 40%.\nIs the chance of thick lips larger when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18889, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with lip thickness case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with lip thickness in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18891, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 96%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 74%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 23%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 2%. The overall probability of old age is 46%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see thick lips if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18897, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nMethod 1: We look at how hospital costs correlates with lip thickness case by case according to age. Method 2: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with lip thickness in general.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 91%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 76%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 28%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 12%. The overall probability of old age is 57%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be more likely to see thick lips if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18904, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nThe overall probability of high hospital bill is 42%. The probability of low hospital bill and thick lips is 18%. The probability of high hospital bill and thick lips is 30%.\nIs the chance of thick lips smaller when observing high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18918, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 96%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 79%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 34%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 20%. The overall probability of old age is 49%.\nFor people who pay a high hospital bill, would it be less likely to see thick lips if the patient had paid a low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18924, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nFor patients who are young and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 95%. For patients who are young and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 73%. For patients who are old and pay a low hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 22%. For patients who are old and pay a high hospital bill, the probability of thick lips is 0%. The overall probability of old age is 52%.\nWill high hospital bill increase the chance of thick lips?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18926, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and lip thickness. Hospital costs has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how hospital costs correlates with lip thickness in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to age.\nTo understand how hospital costs affects lip thickness, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 94%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 81%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 18%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 7%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 57%.\nWill speaking english decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18945, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 53%. For patients who do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 38%. For patients who speak english, the probability of recovery is 80%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18948, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 94%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 80%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 18%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 5%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 58%.\nFor patients who speak english, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18949, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 33%. The probability of not speaking english and recovery is 21%. The probability of speaking english and recovery is 25%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 49%. For patients who do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 18%. For patients who speak english, the probability of recovery is 71%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18954, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to speak english correlates with recovery case by case according to kidney stone size. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18955, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 90%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 79%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 13%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 0%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 40%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18962, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 51%. The probability of not speaking english and recovery is 12%. The probability of speaking english and recovery is 36%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18964, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 95%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 81%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 17%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 6%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 54%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18967, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 50%. For patients who do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 32%. For patients who speak english, the probability of recovery is 79%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18968, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 50%. The probability of not speaking english and recovery is 16%. The probability of speaking english and recovery is 40%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 95%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 83%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 20%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 9%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 41%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18972, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 95%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 83%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 20%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 9%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 41%.\nWill speaking english decrease the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 91%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 81%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 22%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 13%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 53%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 91%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 81%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 22%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 13%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 53%.\nFor patients who speak english, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18976, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 91%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 81%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 22%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 13%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 53%.\nFor patients who speak english, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 52%. For patients who do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 48%. For patients who speak english, the probability of recovery is 71%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18982, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 86%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 75%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 19%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 9%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 55%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18992, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 93%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 85%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 23%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 6%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 50%.\nFor patients who speak english, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 18994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 51%. The probability of not speaking english and recovery is 16%. The probability of speaking english and recovery is 38%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 18995, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with recovery in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kidney stone size.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nMethod 1: We look at how ability to speak english correlates with recovery case by case according to kidney stone size. Method 2: We look directly at how ability to speak english correlates with recovery in general.\nTo understand how ability to speak english affects recovery, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 48%. The probability of not speaking english and recovery is 13%. The probability of speaking english and recovery is 36%.\nIs the chance of recovery smaller when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 83%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 75%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 15%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 5%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 47%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19014, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 99%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 85%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 20%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 9%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 41%.\nFor patients who speak english, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19022, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 63%. For patients who do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 25%. For patients who speak english, the probability of recovery is 62%.\nIs recovery more likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19024, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 63%. The probability of not speaking english and recovery is 9%. The probability of speaking english and recovery is 39%.\nIs the chance of recovery larger when observing speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19027, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 97%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 84%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 20%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 7%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 55%.\nWill speaking english increase the chance of recovery?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19028, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 97%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 84%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 20%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 7%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 55%.\nFor patients who speak english, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19031, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 88%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 79%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 23%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 10%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 45%.\nFor patients who speak english, would it be more likely to see recovery if the patient did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 98%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 85%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 23%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 9%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 57%.\nFor patients who speak english, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19035, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nFor patients who have small kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 99%. For patients who have small kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 88%. For patients who have large kidney stones and do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 32%. For patients who have large kidney stones and speak english, the probability of recovery is 18%. The overall probability of large kidney stone is 59%.\nFor patients who speak english, would it be less likely to see recovery if the patient did not speak english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19037, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on ability to speak english and recovery. Ability to speak english has a direct effect on recovery.\nThe overall probability of speaking english is 45%. For patients who do not speak english, the probability of recovery is 35%. For patients who speak english, the probability of recovery is 78%.\nIs recovery less likely than non-recovery overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19043, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 95%. For people with no pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 75%. For people with pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 24%. For people with pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 3%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 41%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19054, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 85%. For people with no pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 75%. For people with pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 15%. For people with pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 8%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 45%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see recovering from the disease if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19056, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 99%. For people with no pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 77%. For people with pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 25%. For people with pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 4%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 49%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19057, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 53%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 38%. For people who have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 62%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19064, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with disease in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how having a brother affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19067, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 99%. For people with no pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 78%. For people with pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 25%. For people with pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 3%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 42%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19068, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 49%. The probability of not having a brother and recovering from the disease is 22%. The probability of having a brother and recovering from the disease is 36%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19070, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with disease in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how having a brother affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 96%. For people with no pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 80%. For people with pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 35%. For people with pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 17%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 56%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19079, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 53%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 29%. For people who have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 62%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19081, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 38%. The probability of not having a brother and recovering from the disease is 20%. The probability of having a brother and recovering from the disease is 28%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 57%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 32%. For people who have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 63%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19085, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 57%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 32%. For people who have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 63%.\nIs recovering from the disease less likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19089, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with disease in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how having a brother affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 46%. The probability of not having a brother and recovering from the disease is 15%. The probability of having a brother and recovering from the disease is 31%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19103, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 37%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 32%. For people who have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 69%.\nIs recovering from the disease less likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19109, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 94%. For people with no pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 74%. For people with pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 24%. For people with pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 3%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 42%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19110, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 94%. For people with no pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 74%. For people with pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 24%. For people with pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 3%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 42%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see recovering from the disease if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19116, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with disease in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how having a brother affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 91%. For people with no pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 84%. For people with pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 21%. For people with pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 16%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 44%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see recovering from the disease if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19118, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 91%. For people with no pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 84%. For people with pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 21%. For people with pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 16%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 44%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see recovering from the disease if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19120, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 62%. The probability of not having a brother and recovering from the disease is 8%. The probability of having a brother and recovering from the disease is 48%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19125, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with disease in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to pre-conditions.\nTo understand how having a brother affects disease, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19127, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 53%. The probability of not having a brother and recovering from the disease is 9%. The probability of having a brother and recovering from the disease is 32%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 89%. For people with no pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 79%. For people with pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 22%. For people with pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 15%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 54%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see recovering from the disease if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19135, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 66%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 33%. For people who have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 66%.\nIs recovering from the disease more likely than dying from the disease overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19138, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 95%. For people with no pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 80%. For people with pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 30%. For people with pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 19%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 58%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of recovering from the disease?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19139, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nFor people with no pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 95%. For people with no pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 80%. For people with pre-conditions and do not have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 30%. For people with pre-conditions and have a brother, the probability of recovering from the disease is 19%. The overall probability of pre-conditions is 58%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be more likely to see recovering from the disease if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19142, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on having a brother and disease. Having a brother has a direct effect on disease.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 39%. The probability of not having a brother and recovering from the disease is 20%. The probability of having a brother and recovering from the disease is 31%.\nIs the chance of recovering from the disease larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19144, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 60%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 86%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 36%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 61%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 43%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 14%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 71%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 49%. The overall probability of good health is 15%.\nDoes having a sister negatively affect infant mortality through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19145, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 60%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 86%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 36%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 61%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 43%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 14%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 71%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 49%. The overall probability of good health is 15%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would having a sister negatively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19151, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 48%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 72%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 16%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 37%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 52%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 26%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 78%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 57%. The overall probability of good health is 1%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would having a sister positively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19152, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 48%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 72%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 16%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 37%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 52%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 26%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 78%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 57%. The overall probability of good health is 1%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would having a sister negatively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19159, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 81%. For infants who do not have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 83%. For infants who have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 65%.\nIs high infant mortality more likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19173, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 95%. For infants who do not have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 68%. For infants who have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 41%.\nIs high infant mortality more likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19178, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 74%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 97%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 44%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 69%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 58%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 22%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 78%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 50%. The overall probability of good health is 1%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would having a sister positively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19179, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 88%. The probability of not having a sister and high infant mortality is 10%. The probability of having a sister and high infant mortality is 56%.\nIs the chance of high infant mortality larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19184, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 95%. For infants who do not have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 65%. For infants who have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 37%.\nIs high infant mortality less likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19188, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with infant mortality case by case according to infant's birth weight. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with infant mortality in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19191, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 43%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 69%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 16%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 39%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 60%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 28%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 91%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 70%. The overall probability of good health is 10%.\nDoes having a sister negatively affect infant mortality through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19204, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 32%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 73%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 4%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 37%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 55%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 24%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 83%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 57%. The overall probability of good health is 6%.\nDoes having a sister negatively affect infant mortality through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19206, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 87%. For infants who do not have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 54%. For infants who have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 31%.\nIs high infant mortality less likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 40%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 85%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 6%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 32%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 44%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 21%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 77%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 54%. The overall probability of good health is 6%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would having a sister positively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19229, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with infant mortality in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to infant's birth weight.\nTo understand how having a sister affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19230, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 85%. For infants who have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 65%.\nFor infants who have a sister, would it be more likely to see high infant mortality if the infant did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19231, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 81%. For infants who do not have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 85%. For infants who have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 65%.\nIs high infant mortality less likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19234, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 59%. For infants who have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 43%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 42%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 69%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 20%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 44%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 62%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 39%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 95%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 72%. The overall probability of good health is 3%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would having a sister negatively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19242, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 61%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 89%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 24%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 59%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 67%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 31%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 96%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 57%. The overall probability of good health is 13%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect infant mortality through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19249, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 40%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 67%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 13%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 42%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 52%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 11%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 73%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 44%. The overall probability of good health is 19%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would having a sister negatively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19257, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 85%. For infants who do not have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 76%. For infants who have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 56%.\nIs high infant mortality more likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19261, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 63%. For infants who have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 43%.\nFor infants who have a sister, would it be less likely to see high infant mortality if the infant did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19279, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 81%. For infants who do not have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 70%. For infants who have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 54%.\nIs high infant mortality less likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19280, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 81%. The probability of not having a sister and high infant mortality is 13%. The probability of having a sister and high infant mortality is 44%.\nIs the chance of high infant mortality larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19282, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with infant mortality case by case according to infant's birth weight. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with infant mortality in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects infant mortality, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19287, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 59%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 86%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 21%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 60%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 67%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 39%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 99%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 68%. The overall probability of good health is 18%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would having a sister positively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19288, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 82%. For infants who do not have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 76%. For infants who have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 58%.\nIs high infant mortality less likely than low infant mortality overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19291, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 79%. For infants who have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of high infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19295, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 62%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 91%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 19%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 49%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 62%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 38%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 94%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 58%. The overall probability of good health is 11%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect infant mortality through infant's birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19297, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 62%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 91%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 19%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 49%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 62%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 38%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 94%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 58%. The overall probability of good health is 11%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would having a sister negatively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19305, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 59%. For infants who have a sister, the probability of high infant mortality is 39%.\nFor infants who have a sister, would it be more likely to see high infant mortality if the infant did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19306, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 71%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 18%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 59%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 19%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 83%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 44%. The overall probability of good health is 18%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would having a sister positively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19307, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and infant mortality. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on infant mortality. Health condition is unobserved.\nFor infants who do not have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%. For infants who do not have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 71%. For infants who have a sister and low infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 18%. For infants who have a sister and normal infant birth weight, the probability of high infant mortality is 46%. For infants who do not have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 59%. For infants who do not have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 19%. For infants who have a sister and with poor health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 83%. For infants who have a sister and with good health, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 44%. The overall probability of good health is 18%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through infant's birth weight, would having a sister negatively affect infant mortality?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19309, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 80%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 54%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 79%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 53%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 40%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see freckles if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19312, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 36%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 44%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 27%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 1%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 65%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 34%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 65%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 34%. The overall probability of smoking is 95%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19317, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 55%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 18%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 94%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 64%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 89%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 61%. The overall probability of smoking is 50%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19325, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 86%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 51%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 77%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 42%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 76%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 43%. The overall probability of smoking is 82%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19326, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 86%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 51%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 77%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 42%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 76%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 43%. The overall probability of smoking is 82%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19328, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 82%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 8%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 49%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19329, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19330, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with freckles case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19331, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 56%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 10%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 93%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 60%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 88%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 54%. The overall probability of smoking is 55%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 93%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 60%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 88%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 54%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 56%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 10%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see freckles if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19333, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 56%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 10%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 93%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 60%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 88%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 54%. The overall probability of smoking is 55%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19334, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 55%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 74%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 85%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19336, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19337, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with freckles case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19339, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 78%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 32%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 69%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 33%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 76%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 24%. The overall probability of smoking is 97%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19340, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 97%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 1%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 57%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19341, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19342, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with freckles case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19346, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 77%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 26%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 71%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 45%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 63%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 37%. The overall probability of smoking is 39%.\nDoes smoking positively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19347, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 39%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 51%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 57%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 39%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 31%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 22%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with freckles case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19350, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 69%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 3%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 72%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 19%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 69%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 18%. The overall probability of smoking is 70%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19351, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 69%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 3%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 72%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 19%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 69%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 18%. The overall probability of smoking is 70%.\nDoes smoking positively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19352, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 69%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 3%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 72%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 19%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 69%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 18%. The overall probability of smoking is 70%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19353, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19354, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with freckles case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19355, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 61%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 33%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 76%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 38%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 60%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 26%. The overall probability of smoking is 10%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19356, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 76%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 38%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 60%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 26%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 61%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 33%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see freckles if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19357, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 10%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 53%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 49%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 10%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 48%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 5%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19359, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 70%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 21%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 68%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 18%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 73%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 23%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see freckles if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19360, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 73%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 23%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 70%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 21%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 68%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 18%. The overall probability of smoking is 64%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19362, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with freckles case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 56%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 32%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 76%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 43%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 67%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 32%. The overall probability of smoking is 37%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19364, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 56%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 32%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 76%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 43%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 67%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 32%. The overall probability of smoking is 37%.\nDoes smoking positively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19365, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 37%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 57%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 56%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19366, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 37%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 36%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 21%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19367, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19368, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 78%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 28%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 76%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 33%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 77%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 34%. The overall probability of smoking is 63%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19369, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 78%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 28%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 76%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 33%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 77%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 34%. The overall probability of smoking is 63%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 96%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 46%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 68%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19371, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 96%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 2%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 65%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19372, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 57%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 1%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 97%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 58%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 92%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 54%. The overall probability of smoking is 45%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19373, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 57%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 1%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 97%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 58%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 92%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 54%. The overall probability of smoking is 45%.\nDoes smoking positively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19374, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 45%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 75%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 92%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19378, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 57%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 51%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 78%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19380, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 57%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 22%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 45%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19384, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 69%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 12%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 57%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 27%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 56%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 29%. The overall probability of smoking is 86%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 69%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 12%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 57%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 27%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 56%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 29%. The overall probability of smoking is 86%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19387, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 86%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 37%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 53%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19393, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 36%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 2%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 80%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 46%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 78%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 44%. The overall probability of smoking is 63%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19394, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 63%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 67%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 77%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19395, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how smoking correlates with freckles case by case according to gender. Method 2: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19396, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 24%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 90%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 64%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 84%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 59%. The overall probability of smoking is 45%.\nDoes smoking positively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19400, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 62%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 28%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 61%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 27%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 97%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 45%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see freckles if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19403, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 86%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 4%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 39%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19404, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how smoking correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gender.\nTo understand how smoking affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 79%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 49%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 73%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 41%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 29%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see freckles if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19408, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 29%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 79%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 49%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 73%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 41%. The overall probability of smoking is 37%.\nDoes smoking positively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19410, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 75%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 35%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 74%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 36%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 85%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 11%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see freckles if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19412, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 53%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 41%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 69%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19414, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 53%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 19%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 37%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19415, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 79%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 40%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 79%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 49%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 71%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 40%. The overall probability of smoking is 45%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19416, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 79%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 40%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 79%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 49%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 71%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 40%. The overall probability of smoking is 45%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19418, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 79%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 40%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 79%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 49%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 71%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 40%. The overall probability of smoking is 45%.\nDoes smoking positively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19420, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 44%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 22%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 75%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 42%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 75%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 42%. The overall probability of smoking is 60%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19421, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 82%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 56%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 79%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 53%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 32%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see freckles if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 66%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 32%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 82%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 56%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 79%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 53%. The overall probability of smoking is 37%.\nDoes smoking negatively affect freckles through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19425, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 37%. The probability of nonsmoking and freckles is 41%. The probability of smoking and freckles is 26%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 80%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 3%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 57%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 18%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 59%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 22%. The overall probability of smoking is 75%.\nWill smoking decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19428, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 75%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 26%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 58%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19432, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 65%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 33%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 66%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 34%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 70%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 19%.\nFor smokers, would it be less likely to see freckles if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19437, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 74%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 29%. For nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 85%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 59%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 84%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 58%. The overall probability of smoking is 63%.\nWill smoking increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19439, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nFor nonsmokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 85%. For nonsmokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 59%. For smokers and with no tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 84%. For smokers and with high tar deposit, the probability of freckles is 58%. For nonsmokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 74%. For smokers, the probability of high tar deposit is 29%.\nFor smokers, would it be more likely to see freckles if the person had been a nonsmoker?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and freckles. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on freckles. Gender is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of smoking is 63%. For nonsmokers, the probability of freckles is 66%. For smokers, the probability of freckles is 77%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19445, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 54%. For people who do not have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. For people who have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 69%. For people who have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For people who do not have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 95%. For people who do not have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 37%. For people who have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 58%. For people who have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 9%. The overall probability of high pollution is 40%.\nDoes having a brother negatively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19446, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 54%. For people who do not have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. For people who have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 69%. For people who have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 51%. For people who do not have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 95%. For people who do not have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 37%. For people who have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 58%. For people who have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 9%. The overall probability of high pollution is 40%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would having a brother positively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19449, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 81%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 64%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 45%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19452, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 76%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 76%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19455, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 68%. For people who do not have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 54%. For people who have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 82%. For people who have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 58%. For people who do not have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 60%. For people who do not have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 36%. For people who have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 34%. For people who have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 2%. The overall probability of high pollution is 41%.\nDoes having a brother negatively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19457, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 97%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 76%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19458, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 97%. The probability of not having a brother and lung cancer is 2%. The probability of having a brother and lung cancer is 74%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 88%. The probability of not having a brother and lung cancer is 7%. The probability of having a brother and lung cancer is 34%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19468, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For people who do not have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 31%. For people who have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 69%. For people who have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For people who do not have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 62%. For people who do not have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 34%. For people who have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 31%. For people who have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 9%. The overall probability of high pollution is 44%.\nDoes having a brother positively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19472, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to smoking.\nTo understand how having a brother affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19482, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 82%. The probability of not having a brother and lung cancer is 10%. The probability of having a brother and lung cancer is 51%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19488, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 59%. For people who do not have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 36%. For people who have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 67%. For people who have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For people who do not have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 89%. For people who do not have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 56%. For people who have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 60%. For people who have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 25%. The overall probability of high pollution is 47%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would having a brother negatively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19494, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 71%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19496, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 75%. For people who do not have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 57%. For people who have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 82%. For people who have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 59%. For people who do not have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 84%. For people who do not have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 52%. For people who have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 59%. For people who have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 28%. The overall probability of high pollution is 41%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would having a brother positively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19501, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 56%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 40%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19506, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 56%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 64%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19516, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 59%. For people who do not have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 39%. For people who have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 59%. For people who have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 44%. For people who do not have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 87%. For people who do not have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 57%. For people who have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 52%. For people who have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 28%. The overall probability of high pollution is 49%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through smoking, would having a brother negatively affect lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19518, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with lung cancer case by case according to smoking. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19520, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 72%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 56%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19522, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 85%. For people who do not have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 66%. For people who have a brother and nonsmokers, the probability of lung cancer is 66%. For people who have a brother and smokers, the probability of lung cancer is 40%. For people who do not have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 74%. For people who do not have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 46%. For people who have a brother and with low pollution, the probability of smoking is 41%. For people who have a brother and with high pollution, the probability of smoking is 20%. The overall probability of high pollution is 19%.\nDoes having a brother positively affect lung cancer through smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19525, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with lung cancer case by case according to smoking. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19527, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 93%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 47%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 54%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 78%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 58%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19537, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 90%. The probability of not having a brother and lung cancer is 5%. The probability of having a brother and lung cancer is 50%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 90%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 48%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19564, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 94%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 54%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 57%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19567, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 65%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19572, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 90%. For people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 55%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 65%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19581, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 53%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19582, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 53%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19583, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 70%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 53%.\nFor people who have a brother, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not have a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19587, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nFor people who do not have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 62%. For people who have a brother, the probability of lung cancer is 70%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19595, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 46%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 24%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 48%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19599, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 98%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 24%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 48%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 64%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 80%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 16%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 54%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 13%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 16%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 54%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 13%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19612, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 34%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 44%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19619, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 9%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 52%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 7%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19631, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 99%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 27%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 57%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 99%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 0%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 56%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19634, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 98%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 1%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 32%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19637, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 29%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 64%.\nDoes having a sister negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19638, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 8%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 29%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 64%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19641, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 99%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 0%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 79%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19644, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19647, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 13%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 28%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 54%.\nIs lung cancer more likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19650, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 73%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19653, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 82%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 73%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19654, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 82%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 6%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 60%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19659, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 14%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19660, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 32%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 14%.\nDoes having a sister negatively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19663, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 64%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 89%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19664, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 64%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 89%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19665, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 64%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 89%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19668, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 15%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 55%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 13%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19669, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 61%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 81%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19670, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tar deposit.\nTo understand how having a sister affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19671, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 69%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 54%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be less likely to see lung cancer if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19675, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 72%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 93%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 13%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 62%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 13%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer larger when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19680, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 54%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 21%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19682, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 95%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 3%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 20%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19683, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tar deposit.\nTo understand how having a sister affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 30%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 43%.\nFor people who have a sister, would it be more likely to see lung cancer if the person did not have a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 88%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 7%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 25%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19697, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tar deposit.\nTo understand how having a sister affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19698, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nWill having a sister increase the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19699, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 35%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 51%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19703, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19710, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 80%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 10%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 27%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19711, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19713, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 47%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19715, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 96%. For people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 33%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 47%.\nIs lung cancer less likely than absence of lung cancer overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19716, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 96%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 1%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 45%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tar deposit.\nTo understand how having a sister affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19718, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 60%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 74%.\nWill having a sister decrease the chance of lung cancer?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nFor people who do not have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 60%. For people who have a sister, the probability of lung cancer is 74%.\nDoes having a sister positively affect lung cancer through tar deposit?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19725, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nThe overall probability of having a sister is 95%. The probability of not having a sister and lung cancer is 4%. The probability of having a sister and lung cancer is 48%.\nIs the chance of lung cancer smaller when observing having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19726, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer case by case according to tar deposit. Method 2: We look directly at how having a sister correlates with lung cancer in general.\nTo understand how having a sister affects lung cancer, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19729, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 31%. For infants who do not have a brother, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 42%. For infants who have a brother, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 67%.\nIs normal infant birth weight more likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19730, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 31%. For infants who do not have a brother, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 42%. For infants who have a brother, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 67%.\nIs normal infant birth weight less likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19731, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 31%. The probability of not having a brother and normal infant birth weight is 29%. The probability of having a brother and normal infant birth weight is 21%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19734, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 63%. The probability of not having a brother and normal infant birth weight is 6%. The probability of having a brother and normal infant birth weight is 30%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with infant's birth weight case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with infant's birth weight in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19738, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 26%. For infants who do not have a brother, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 26%. For infants who have a brother, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 61%.\nIs normal infant birth weight more likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19748, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with infant's birth weight case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with infant's birth weight in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19757, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 31%. For infants who do not have a brother, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 5%. For infants who have a brother, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 38%.\nIs normal infant birth weight more likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19758, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 31%. For infants who do not have a brother, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 5%. For infants who have a brother, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 38%.\nIs normal infant birth weight less likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19761, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 26%. The probability of not having a brother and normal infant birth weight is 23%. The probability of having a brother and normal infant birth weight is 14%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19762, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with infant's birth weight in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how having a brother affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19770, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 17%. The probability of not having a brother and normal infant birth weight is 31%. The probability of having a brother and normal infant birth weight is 14%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight larger when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with infant's birth weight in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to unobserved confounders.\nTo understand how having a brother affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19785, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how having a brother correlates with infant's birth weight case by case according to unobserved confounders. Method 2: We look directly at how having a brother correlates with infant's birth weight in general.\nTo understand how having a brother affects infant's birth weight, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19791, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 39%. For infants who do not have a brother, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 37%. For infants who have a brother, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 73%.\nIs normal infant birth weight less likely than low infant birth weight overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19796, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 32%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 50%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of having a brother is 46%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of having a brother is 76%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 34%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 42%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of having a brother is 34%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of having a brother is 63%.\nWill having a brother increase the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19800, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of having a brother is 39%. The probability of not having a brother and normal infant birth weight is 14%. The probability of having a brother and normal infant birth weight is 21%.\nIs the chance of normal infant birth weight smaller when observing having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19806, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on having a brother and infant's birth weight. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on having a brother. Having a brother has a direct effect on infant's birth weight. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nFor areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 7%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of normal infant birth weight is 22%. For areas with low cigarette tax, the probability of having a brother is 6%. For areas with high cigarette tax, the probability of having a brother is 49%.\nWill having a brother decrease the chance of normal infant birth weight?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19818, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 22%. For people with only polluted water, the probability of freckles is 57%. For people with access to clean water, the probability of freckles is 79%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19819, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 22%. The probability of polluted water and freckles is 44%. The probability of clean water and freckles is 17%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19820, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how water quality correlates with freckles case by case according to poverty. Method 2: We look directly at how water quality correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how water quality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19821, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 23%. For people with only polluted water, the probability of freckles is 57%. For people with access to clean water, the probability of freckles is 79%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19826, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 48%. For people with only polluted water, the probability of freckles is 37%. For people with access to clean water, the probability of freckles is 76%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19831, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of freckles is 78%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of freckles is 71%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of clean water is 48%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of clean water is 24%.\nWill clean water increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19839, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how water quality correlates with freckles case by case according to poverty. Method 2: We look directly at how water quality correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how water quality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19842, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 40%. The probability of polluted water and freckles is 37%. The probability of clean water and freckles is 34%.\nIs the chance of freckles smaller when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19846, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how water quality correlates with freckles case by case according to poverty. Method 2: We look directly at how water quality correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how water quality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19847, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how water quality correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to poverty.\nTo understand how water quality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19848, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how water quality correlates with freckles case by case according to poverty. Method 2: We look directly at how water quality correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how water quality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19851, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 33%. The probability of polluted water and freckles is 23%. The probability of clean water and freckles is 24%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19856, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 35%. The probability of polluted water and freckles is 40%. The probability of clean water and freckles is 29%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19858, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how water quality correlates with freckles case by case according to poverty. Method 2: We look directly at how water quality correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how water quality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19863, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 26%. For people with only polluted water, the probability of freckles is 33%. For people with access to clean water, the probability of freckles is 63%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19866, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how water quality correlates with freckles in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to poverty.\nTo understand how water quality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19871, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 24%. For people with only polluted water, the probability of freckles is 25%. For people with access to clean water, the probability of freckles is 55%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19874, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of freckles is 47%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of freckles is 35%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of clean water is 54%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of clean water is 13%.\nWill clean water decrease the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19885, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 13%. For people with only polluted water, the probability of freckles is 58%. For people with access to clean water, the probability of freckles is 95%.\nIs freckles more likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 13%. For people with only polluted water, the probability of freckles is 58%. For people with access to clean water, the probability of freckles is 95%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19894, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how water quality correlates with freckles case by case according to poverty. Method 2: We look directly at how water quality correlates with freckles in general.\nTo understand how water quality affects freckles, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19900, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 19%. For people with only polluted water, the probability of freckles is 40%. For people with access to clean water, the probability of freckles is 57%.\nIs freckles less likely than no freckles overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19902, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nFor people served by a local water company, the probability of freckles is 54%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of freckles is 41%. For people served by a local water company, the probability of clean water is 56%. For people served by a global water company, the probability of clean water is 26%.\nWill clean water increase the chance of freckles?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19906, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on water quality and freckles. Water company has a direct effect on water quality. Water quality has a direct effect on freckles. Poverty is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of clean water is 25%. The probability of polluted water and freckles is 34%. The probability of clean water and freckles is 23%.\nIs the chance of freckles larger when observing clean water?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19914, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that drinking coffee causes alarm not set by wife. drinking coffee or alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm rings the next morning if not drinking coffee instead of drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19915, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that drinking coffee causes alarm not set by wife. drinking coffee or alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm doesn't ring the next morning if not drinking coffee instead of drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19916, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that drinking coffee causes alarm not set by wife. drinking coffee or alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm rings the next morning if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19918, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that drinking coffee causes alarm not set by wife. drinking coffee and alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm rings the next morning if not drinking coffee instead of drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19920, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that drinking coffee causes alarm not set by wife. drinking coffee and alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm rings the next morning if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19924, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that drinking coffee causes alarm set by wife. drinking coffee or alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm rings the next morning if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19929, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Drinking coffee has a direct effect on wife and alarm clock. Wife has a direct effect on alarm clock.\nWe know that drinking coffee causes alarm set by wife. drinking coffee and alarm set by wife causes ringing alarm.\nWould the alarm doesn't ring the next morning if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19933, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that liking spicy food or candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle is out of wax.\nWould the room is bright if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that liking spicy food or candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle has wax.\nWould the room is dark if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19936, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that liking spicy food or candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle has wax.\nWould the room is dark if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19938, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that liking spicy food and candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle is out of wax.\nWould the room is dark if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19939, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that liking spicy food and candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle is out of wax.\nWould the room is bright if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19942, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that liking spicy food and candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle has wax.\nWould the room is dark if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19943, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on room. The candle has a direct effect on room.\nWe know that liking spicy food and candle with wax causes dark room. We observed the candle has wax.\nWould the room is bright if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19946, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19947, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19948, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19949, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19950, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19951, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19953, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19954, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19955, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19957, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19959, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19960, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19963, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes not having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19964, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes not having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes not having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19967, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes not having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19968, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes not having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19969, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes not having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England or director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19970, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes not having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19972, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes not having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19973, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes not having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to retain the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes not having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes not having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19976, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes not having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is fired if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19977, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: CEO has a direct effect on director and having visited England. Having visited England has a direct effect on employee. Director has a direct effect on employee.\nWe know that CEO's decision to fire the employee causes not having visited England and director signing the termination letter. having visited England and director signing the termination letter causes employee being fired. We observed the CEO decides to fire the employee.\nWould the employee is not fired if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that having a sister causes the corporal shooting and the private not shooting. the corporal shooting or the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if not having a sister instead of having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that having a sister causes the corporal shooting and the private not shooting. the corporal shooting or the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if having a sister instead of not having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that having a sister causes the corporal shooting and the private not shooting. the corporal shooting or the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is alive if having a sister instead of not having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19982, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that having a sister causes the corporal shooting and the private shooting. the corporal shooting or the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if not having a sister instead of having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19983, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that having a sister causes the corporal shooting and the private shooting. the corporal shooting or the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is alive if not having a sister instead of having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19984, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that having a sister causes the corporal shooting and the private shooting. the corporal shooting or the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if having a sister instead of not having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19986, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that having a sister causes the corporal shooting and the private shooting. the corporal shooting and the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if not having a sister instead of having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19987, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that having a sister causes the corporal shooting and the private shooting. the corporal shooting and the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is alive if not having a sister instead of having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19988, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that having a sister causes the corporal shooting and the private shooting. the corporal shooting and the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if having a sister instead of not having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19990, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that having a sister causes the corporal shooting and the private not shooting. the corporal shooting and the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is dead if not having a sister instead of having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19991, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that having a sister causes the corporal shooting and the private not shooting. the corporal shooting and the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is alive if not having a sister instead of having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19993, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on the private and the corporal. The corporal has a direct effect on prisoner. The private has a direct effect on prisoner.\nWe know that having a sister causes the corporal shooting and the private not shooting. the corporal shooting and the private shooting causes the prisoner's death.\nWould the prisoner is alive if having a sister instead of not having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that full moon causes rain and sprinkler on. rain and sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is wet if no full moon instead of full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19995, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that full moon causes rain and sprinkler on. rain and sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is dry if no full moon instead of full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19996, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that full moon causes rain and sprinkler on. rain and sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is wet if full moon instead of no full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 19997, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that full moon causes rain and sprinkler on. rain and sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is dry if full moon instead of no full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19998, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that full moon causes rain and sprinkler off. rain and sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is wet if no full moon instead of full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 19999, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that full moon causes rain and sprinkler off. rain and sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is dry if no full moon instead of full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20000, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that full moon causes rain and sprinkler off. rain and sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is wet if full moon instead of no full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that full moon causes rain and sprinkler on. rain or sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is wet if no full moon instead of full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that full moon causes rain and sprinkler on. rain or sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is dry if no full moon instead of full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20004, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that full moon causes rain and sprinkler on. rain or sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is wet if full moon instead of no full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20005, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that full moon causes rain and sprinkler on. rain or sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is dry if full moon instead of no full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20008, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that full moon causes rain and sprinkler off. rain or sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is wet if full moon instead of no full moon?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20009, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Full moon has a direct effect on sprinkler and weather. Weather has a direct effect on ground. Sprinkler has a direct effect on ground.\nWe know that full moon causes rain and sprinkler off. rain or sprinkler on causes wet ground.\nWould the ground is dry if full moon instead of no full moon?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that liking spicy food and the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker doesn't light a match.\nWould the forest burns down if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20012, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that liking spicy food and the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker doesn't light a match.\nWould the forest burns down if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20013, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that liking spicy food and the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker doesn't light a match.\nWould the forest doesn't burn down if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20014, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that liking spicy food and the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker lights a match.\nWould the forest burns down if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20015, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that liking spicy food and the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker lights a match.\nWould the forest doesn't burn down if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20016, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that liking spicy food and the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker lights a match.\nWould the forest burns down if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20017, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that liking spicy food and the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker lights a match.\nWould the forest doesn't burn down if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20018, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that liking spicy food or the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker doesn't light a match.\nWould the forest burns down if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20021, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that liking spicy food or the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker doesn't light a match.\nWould the forest doesn't burn down if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20023, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that liking spicy food or the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker lights a match.\nWould the forest doesn't burn down if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20024, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on the forest. The smoker has a direct effect on the forest.\nWe know that liking spicy food or the chain-smoker lighting a match causes the forest on fire. We observed the chain-smoker lights a match.\nWould the forest burns down if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20026, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that solar eclipse or heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is no traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school on time if no solar eclipse instead of solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20027, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that solar eclipse or heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is no traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school late if no solar eclipse instead of solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20028, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that solar eclipse or heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is no traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school on time if solar eclipse instead of no solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20030, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that solar eclipse or heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is heavy traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school on time if no solar eclipse instead of solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20031, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that solar eclipse or heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is heavy traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school late if no solar eclipse instead of solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20032, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that solar eclipse or heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is heavy traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school on time if solar eclipse instead of no solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that solar eclipse or heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is heavy traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school late if solar eclipse instead of no solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20034, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that solar eclipse and heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is no traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school on time if no solar eclipse instead of solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20037, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that solar eclipse and heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is no traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school late if solar eclipse instead of no solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20040, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Solar eclipse has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school. Traffic has a direct effect on Alice arriving to school.\nWe know that solar eclipse and heavy traffic causes arriving to school on time. We observed there is heavy traffic on the road.\nWould Alice arrives at school on time if solar eclipse instead of no solar eclipse?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20042, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that tanning salon treatment or going to the beach causes large feet. We observed the person does not go to the beach.\nWould the person has large feet if no tanning salon treatment instead of tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20043, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that tanning salon treatment or going to the beach causes large feet. We observed the person does not go to the beach.\nWould the person has small feet if no tanning salon treatment instead of tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20045, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that tanning salon treatment or going to the beach causes large feet. We observed the person does not go to the beach.\nWould the person has small feet if tanning salon treatment instead of no tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20050, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that tanning salon treatment and going to the beach causes large feet. We observed the person does not go to the beach.\nWould the person has large feet if no tanning salon treatment instead of tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20054, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that tanning salon treatment and going to the beach causes large feet. We observed the person goes to the beach.\nWould the person has large feet if no tanning salon treatment instead of tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20055, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that tanning salon treatment and going to the beach causes large feet. We observed the person goes to the beach.\nWould the person has small feet if no tanning salon treatment instead of tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20056, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tanning salon treatment has a direct effect on foot size. Going to the beach has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that tanning salon treatment and going to the beach causes large feet. We observed the person goes to the beach.\nWould the person has large feet if tanning salon treatment instead of no tanning salon treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20060, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin happiness. taking the elevator or penguin happiness causes large feet.\nWould the person has large feet if taking the elevator instead of taking the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20064, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin saddness. taking the elevator or penguin happiness causes large feet.\nWould the person has large feet if taking the elevator instead of taking the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20067, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin saddness. taking the elevator and penguin happiness causes large feet.\nWould the person has small feet if taking the stairs instead of taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20068, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin saddness. taking the elevator and penguin happiness causes large feet.\nWould the person has large feet if taking the elevator instead of taking the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20071, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin happiness. taking the elevator and penguin happiness causes large feet.\nWould the person has small feet if taking the stairs instead of taking the elevator?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin happiness. taking the elevator and penguin happiness causes large feet.\nWould the person has large feet if taking the elevator instead of taking the stairs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20073, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: My decision has a direct effect on penguin mood and foot size. Penguin mood has a direct effect on foot size.\nWe know that taking the elevator causes penguin happiness. taking the elevator and penguin happiness causes large feet.\nWould the person has small feet if taking the elevator instead of taking the stairs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20075, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that having a brother causes having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction. having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person dies from smallpox if not having a brother instead of having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20081, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that having a brother causes having smallpox and no vaccine reaction. having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person dies from smallpox if having a brother instead of not having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20082, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that having a brother causes having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person survives smallpox if not having a brother instead of having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20083, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that having a brother causes having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person dies from smallpox if not having a brother instead of having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that having a brother causes having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person survives smallpox if having a brother instead of not having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20085, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that having a brother causes having smallpox and severe vaccination reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person dies from smallpox if having a brother instead of not having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20086, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that having a brother causes having smallpox and no vaccine reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person survives smallpox if not having a brother instead of having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20087, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that having a brother causes having smallpox and no vaccine reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person dies from smallpox if not having a brother instead of having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20088, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that having a brother causes having smallpox and no vaccine reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person survives smallpox if having a brother instead of not having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20089, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a brother has a direct effect on vaccination reaction and getting smallpox. Getting smallpox has a direct effect on smallpox survival. Vaccination reaction has a direct effect on smallpox survival.\nWe know that having a brother causes having smallpox and no vaccine reaction. having smallpox or severe vaccination reaction causes smallpox survival.\nWould the person dies from smallpox if having a brother instead of not having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20094, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that having a sister causes low blood pressure. having a sister and high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person has a healthy heart if not having a sister instead of having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20095, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that having a sister causes low blood pressure. having a sister and high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person experiences a heart problems if not having a sister instead of having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20098, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that having a sister causes high blood pressure. having a sister or high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person has a healthy heart if not having a sister instead of having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that having a sister causes high blood pressure. having a sister or high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person experiences a heart problems if not having a sister instead of having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that having a sister causes high blood pressure. having a sister or high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person has a healthy heart if having a sister instead of not having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20104, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that having a sister causes high blood pressure. having a sister and high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person has a healthy heart if having a sister instead of not having a sister?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20105, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having a sister has a direct effect on blood pressure and heart condition. Blood pressure has a direct effect on heart condition.\nWe know that having a sister causes high blood pressure. having a sister and high blood pressure causes healthy heart.\nWould the person experiences a heart problems if having a sister instead of not having a sister?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active or taking of all assigned drugs causes freckles. We observed the patient is assigned the treatment and confounder active.\nWould the patient has freckles if not taking of any assigned drugs instead of taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20114, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active or taking of all assigned drugs causes freckles. We observed the patient is assigned the treatment and confounder active.\nWould the patient has no freckles if not taking of any assigned drugs instead of taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20116, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active and taking of all assigned drugs causes freckles. We observed the patient is not assigned the drug treatment and confounder inactive.\nWould the patient has freckles if not taking of any assigned drugs instead of taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20122, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active and taking of all assigned drugs causes freckles. We observed the patient is assigned the treatment and confounder inactive.\nWould the patient has freckles if taking of all assigned drugs instead of not taking of any assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20125, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active and taking of all assigned drugs causes freckles. We observed the patient is assigned the treatment and confounder active.\nWould the patient has no freckles if not taking of any assigned drugs instead of taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20131, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active and taking of all assigned drugs causes freckles. We observed the patient is not assigned the drug treatment and confounder inactive.\nWould the patient has no freckles if taking of all assigned drugs instead of not taking of any assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20132, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active and taking of all assigned drugs causes freckles. We observed the patient is not assigned the drug treatment and confounder active.\nWould the patient has freckles if not taking of any assigned drugs instead of taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20137, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active and taking of all assigned drugs causes freckles. We observed the patient is assigned the treatment and confounder inactive.\nWould the patient has no freckles if taking of all assigned drugs instead of not taking of any assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20139, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active and taking of all assigned drugs causes freckles. We observed the patient is assigned the treatment and confounder active.\nWould the patient has no freckles if not taking of any assigned drugs instead of taking of all assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20143, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active or taking of all assigned drugs causes freckles. We observed the patient is not assigned the drug treatment and confounder inactive.\nWould the patient has freckles if taking of all assigned drugs instead of not taking of any assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active or taking of all assigned drugs causes freckles. We observed the patient is assigned the treatment and confounder inactive.\nWould the patient has freckles if taking of all assigned drugs instead of not taking of any assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20150, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drug taken and freckles. Treatment assignment has a direct effect on drug taken. Drug taken has a direct effect on freckles. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and assignment of drug treatment causes taking of all assigned drugs. confounder active or taking of all assigned drugs causes freckles. We observed the patient is assigned the treatment and confounder inactive.\nWould the patient has no freckles if taking of all assigned drugs instead of not taking of any assigned drugs?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20153, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes low skill level, and we know that high skill level causes blond hair.\nWould the employee has blond hair if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20156, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes low skill level, and we know that high skill level causes black hair.\nWould the employee has black hair if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20157, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes low skill level, and we know that high skill level causes black hair.\nWould the employee has blond hair if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20159, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes low skill level, and we know that high skill level causes black hair.\nWould the employee has blond hair if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20161, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes high skill level, and we know that high skill level causes blond hair.\nWould the employee has blond hair if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20163, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes high skill level, and we know that high skill level causes blond hair.\nWould the employee has blond hair if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20164, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes high skill level, and we know that high skill level causes black hair.\nWould the employee has black hair if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20165, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes high skill level, and we know that high skill level causes black hair.\nWould the employee has blond hair if high school degree or lower instead of college degree or higher?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Education level has a direct effect on skill. Skill has a direct effect on black hair.\nWe know that college degree or higher causes high skill level, and we know that high skill level causes black hair.\nWould the employee has black hair if college degree or higher instead of high school degree or lower?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20169, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active or drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives far from a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a high salary if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20172, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active or drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives far from a college and confounder active.\nWould the employee has a high salary if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20173, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active or drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives far from a college and confounder active.\nWould the employee has a low salary if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20174, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active or drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a high salary if not drinking coffee instead of drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20175, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active or drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a high salary if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20177, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active or drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder active.\nWould the employee has a high salary if not drinking coffee instead of drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20181, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active and drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives far from a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a high salary if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20186, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active and drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a low salary if not drinking coffee instead of drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20193, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active or drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives far from a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a high salary if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20195, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active or drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives far from a college and confounder active.\nWould the employee has a high salary if not drinking coffee instead of drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20198, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active or drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a high salary if not drinking coffee instead of drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20200, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active or drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a high salary if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20203, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active or drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder active.\nWould the employee has a high salary if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20212, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active and drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder inactive.\nWould the employee has a low salary if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20213, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on drinking coffee and salary. Proximity to a college has a direct effect on drinking coffee. Drinking coffee has a direct effect on salary. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and close to a college causes drinking coffee. confounder active and drinking coffee causes high salary. We observed the person lives close to a college and confounder active.\nWould the employee has a high salary if drinking coffee instead of not drinking coffee?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20214, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nWe know that being able to swim causes lack of studying. being able to swim or studying hard causes high exam score.\nWould the student has a high exam score if not being able to swim instead of being able to swim?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20215, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nWe know that being able to swim causes lack of studying. being able to swim or studying hard causes high exam score.\nWould the student has a low exam score if not being able to swim instead of being able to swim?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20217, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nWe know that being able to swim causes lack of studying. being able to swim or studying hard causes high exam score.\nWould the student has a low exam score if being able to swim instead of not being able to swim?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20219, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nWe know that being able to swim causes studying hard. being able to swim and studying hard causes high exam score.\nWould the student has a low exam score if not being able to swim instead of being able to swim?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20220, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nWe know that being able to swim causes studying hard. being able to swim and studying hard causes high exam score.\nWould the student has a high exam score if being able to swim instead of not being able to swim?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20224, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nWe know that being able to swim causes studying hard. being able to swim or studying hard causes high exam score.\nWould the student has a high exam score if being able to swim instead of not being able to swim?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20226, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to swim has a direct effect on studying habit and exam score. Studying habit has a direct effect on exam score.\nWe know that being able to swim causes lack of studying. being able to swim and studying hard causes high exam score.\nWould the student has a high exam score if not being able to swim instead of being able to swim?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20231, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nWe know that male gender causes non-competitive department. male gender and competitive department causes being allergic to peanuts.\nWould the applicant is not allergic to peanuts if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20234, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nWe know that male gender causes non-competitive department. male gender or competitive department causes being allergic to peanuts.\nWould the applicant is allergic to peanuts if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nWe know that male gender causes non-competitive department. male gender or competitive department causes being allergic to peanuts.\nWould the applicant is allergic to peanuts if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20238, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nWe know that male gender causes competitive department. male gender or competitive department causes being allergic to peanuts.\nWould the applicant is allergic to peanuts if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20239, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nWe know that male gender causes competitive department. male gender or competitive department causes being allergic to peanuts.\nWould the applicant is not allergic to peanuts if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20242, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nWe know that male gender causes competitive department. male gender and competitive department causes being allergic to peanuts.\nWould the applicant is allergic to peanuts if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20243, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nWe know that male gender causes competitive department. male gender and competitive department causes being allergic to peanuts.\nWould the applicant is not allergic to peanuts if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20244, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nWe know that male gender causes competitive department. male gender and competitive department causes being allergic to peanuts.\nWould the applicant is allergic to peanuts if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20245, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and peanut allergy. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on peanut allergy.\nWe know that male gender causes competitive department. male gender and competitive department causes being allergic to peanuts.\nWould the applicant is not allergic to peanuts if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20250, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender or in-state residency or competitive department causes brown eyes. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant has brown eyes if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20254, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes brown eyes. We observed the residency is out-of-state.\nWould the applicant has brown eyes if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20255, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes brown eyes. We observed the residency is out-of-state.\nWould the applicant has blue eyes if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20261, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes brown eyes. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant has blue eyes if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20263, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes brown eyes. We observed the residency is out-of-state.\nWould the applicant has blue eyes if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20265, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes brown eyes. We observed the residency is out-of-state.\nWould the applicant has blue eyes if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20267, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes brown eyes. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant has blue eyes if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20269, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender and in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender and in-state residency and competitive department causes brown eyes. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant has blue eyes if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20272, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender or in-state residency or competitive department causes brown eyes. We observed the residency is out-of-state.\nWould the applicant has brown eyes if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20273, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender or in-state residency or competitive department causes brown eyes. We observed the residency is out-of-state.\nWould the applicant has blue eyes if male gender instead of non-male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Residency status has a direct effect on department competitiveness and brown eyes. Department competitiveness has a direct effect on brown eyes. Residency status is unobserved.\nWe know that male gender or in-state residency causes competitive department. male gender or in-state residency or competitive department causes brown eyes. We observed the resident is in-state.\nWould the applicant has blue eyes if non-male gender instead of male gender?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20278, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that having visited England or high skill level causes white-collar job. having visited England and high skill level and white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a low skill level.\nWould the employee has a high salary if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20285, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that having visited England or high skill level causes white-collar job. having visited England and high skill level and white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a high skill level.\nWould the employee has a low salary if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20286, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that having visited England and high skill level causes white-collar job. having visited England or high skill level or white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a low skill level.\nWould the employee has a high salary if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20288, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that having visited England and high skill level causes white-collar job. having visited England or high skill level or white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a low skill level.\nWould the employee has a high salary if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20290, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that having visited England and high skill level causes white-collar job. having visited England or high skill level or white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a high skill level.\nWould the employee has a high salary if not having visited England instead of having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20292, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that having visited England and high skill level causes white-collar job. having visited England or high skill level or white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a high skill level.\nWould the employee has a high salary if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20296, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that having visited England and high skill level causes white-collar job. having visited England and high skill level and white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a low skill level.\nWould the employee has a high salary if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20301, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that having visited England and high skill level causes white-collar job. having visited England and high skill level and white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a high skill level.\nWould the employee has a low salary if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20304, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that having visited England or high skill level causes white-collar job. having visited England or high skill level or white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a low skill level.\nWould the employee has a high salary if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20308, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that having visited England or high skill level causes white-collar job. having visited England or high skill level or white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a high skill level.\nWould the employee has a high salary if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20309, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Having visited England has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Skill has a direct effect on occupation and salary. Occupation has a direct effect on salary. Skill is unobserved.\nWe know that having visited England or high skill level causes white-collar job. having visited England or high skill level or white-collar job causes high salary. We observed the person has a high skill level.\nWould the employee has a low salary if having visited England instead of not having visited England?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20313, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that liking spicy food and confounder active causes high parental social status. liking spicy food or confounder active or high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder inactive.\nWould the child is not intelligent if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20314, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that liking spicy food and confounder active causes high parental social status. liking spicy food or confounder active or high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder active.\nWould the child is intelligent if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20316, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that liking spicy food and confounder active causes high parental social status. liking spicy food or confounder active or high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder active.\nWould the child is intelligent if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20319, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that liking spicy food or confounder active causes high parental social status. liking spicy food or confounder active or high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder inactive.\nWould the child is not intelligent if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20323, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that liking spicy food or confounder active causes high parental social status. liking spicy food or confounder active or high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder active.\nWould the child is not intelligent if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20326, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that liking spicy food or confounder active causes high parental social status. liking spicy food and confounder active and high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder inactive.\nWould the child is intelligent if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20329, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that liking spicy food or confounder active causes high parental social status. liking spicy food and confounder active and high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder inactive.\nWould the child is not intelligent if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20338, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Liking spicy food has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors has a direct effect on parents' social status and child's intelligence. Parents' social status has a direct effect on child's intelligence. Other unobserved factors is unobserved.\nWe know that liking spicy food and confounder active causes high parental social status. liking spicy food and confounder active and high parental social status causes intelligent child. We observed confounder active.\nWould the child is intelligent if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that smoking causes being hard-working. smoking and being hard-working causes being lactose intolerant.\nWould the student is not lactose intolerant if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20350, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that smoking causes being lazy. smoking and being hard-working causes being lactose intolerant.\nWould the student is lactose intolerant if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20353, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that smoking causes being lazy. smoking and being hard-working causes being lactose intolerant.\nWould the student is not lactose intolerant if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20354, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that smoking causes being hard-working. smoking or being hard-working causes being lactose intolerant.\nWould the student is lactose intolerant if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20355, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that smoking causes being hard-working. smoking or being hard-working causes being lactose intolerant.\nWould the student is not lactose intolerant if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20357, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Smoking has a direct effect on effort and lactose intolerance. Effort has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that smoking causes being hard-working. smoking or being hard-working causes being lactose intolerant.\nWould the student is not lactose intolerant if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english and smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english and smoker and having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a nonsmoker.\nWould the person has a long lifespan if not speaking english instead of speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20361, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english and smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english and smoker and having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a nonsmoker.\nWould the person has a short lifespan if speaking english instead of not speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20362, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english and smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english and smoker and having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a smoker.\nWould the person has a long lifespan if not speaking english instead of speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20364, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english and smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english and smoker and having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a smoker.\nWould the person has a long lifespan if speaking english instead of not speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20369, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english and smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english or smoker or having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a nonsmoker.\nWould the person has a short lifespan if speaking english instead of not speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english and smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english or smoker or having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a smoker.\nWould the person has a long lifespan if not speaking english instead of speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20371, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english and smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english or smoker or having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a smoker.\nWould the person has a short lifespan if not speaking english instead of speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20379, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english or smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english and smoker and having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a smoker.\nWould the person has a short lifespan if not speaking english instead of speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20380, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english or smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english and smoker and having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a smoker.\nWould the person has a long lifespan if speaking english instead of not speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english or smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english and smoker and having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a smoker.\nWould the person has a short lifespan if speaking english instead of not speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20385, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english or smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english or smoker or having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a nonsmoker.\nWould the person has a short lifespan if speaking english instead of not speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english or smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english or smoker or having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a smoker.\nWould the person has a long lifespan if not speaking english instead of speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20388, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english or smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english or smoker or having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a smoker.\nWould the person has a long lifespan if speaking english instead of not speaking english?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20389, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Ability to speak english has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Smoking has a direct effect on diabetes and lifespan. Diabetes has a direct effect on lifespan. Smoking is unobserved.\nWe know that speaking english or smoker causes having diabetes. speaking english or smoker or having diabetes causes long lifespan. We observed the person is a smoker.\nWould the person has a short lifespan if speaking english instead of not speaking english?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20390, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nWe know that citrus intake causes vitamin C deficiency, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes curly hair.\nWould the patient has curly hair if absence of citrus instead of citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20391, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nWe know that citrus intake causes vitamin C deficiency, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes curly hair.\nWould the patient has straight hair if absence of citrus instead of citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20392, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nWe know that citrus intake causes vitamin C deficiency, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes curly hair.\nWould the patient has curly hair if citrus intake instead of absence of citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20395, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nWe know that citrus intake causes vitamin C deficiency, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes straight hair.\nWould the patient has straight hair if absence of citrus instead of citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20396, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nWe know that citrus intake causes vitamin C deficiency, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes straight hair.\nWould the patient has curly hair if citrus intake instead of absence of citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20400, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nWe know that citrus intake causes sufficient vitamin C, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes curly hair.\nWould the patient has curly hair if citrus intake instead of absence of citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20401, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nWe know that citrus intake causes sufficient vitamin C, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes curly hair.\nWould the patient has straight hair if citrus intake instead of absence of citrus?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20402, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nWe know that citrus intake causes sufficient vitamin C, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes straight hair.\nWould the patient has curly hair if absence of citrus instead of citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20403, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nWe know that citrus intake causes sufficient vitamin C, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes straight hair.\nWould the patient has straight hair if absence of citrus instead of citrus intake?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20405, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Eating citrus has a direct effect on vitmain C. Vitmain C has a direct effect on curly hair.\nWe know that citrus intake causes sufficient vitamin C, and we know that sufficient vitamin C causes straight hair.\nWould the patient has straight hair if citrus intake instead of absence of citrus?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20406, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand and increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes high rainfall. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is low.\nWould there is low rainfall if reduced supply instead of increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20408, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand and increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes high rainfall. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is low.\nWould there is low rainfall if increased supply instead of reduced supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20412, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand and increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes high rainfall. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is high.\nWould there is low rainfall if increased supply instead of reduced supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20420, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand and increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand or increased supply causes high rainfall. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is low.\nWould there is low rainfall if reduced supply instead of increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20422, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand and increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand or increased supply causes high rainfall. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is high.\nWould there is high rainfall if reduced supply instead of increased supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand and increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand or increased supply causes high rainfall. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is high.\nWould there is low rainfall if reduced supply instead of increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20434, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand or increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes high rainfall. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is low.\nWould there is low rainfall if increased supply instead of reduced supply?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20438, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand or increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes high rainfall. We observed the farm has an increased yield per acre and the demand is high.\nWould there is high rainfall if reduced supply instead of increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20444, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand or increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand or increased supply causes high rainfall. We observed the farm has a reduced yield per acre and the demand is high.\nWould there is low rainfall if reduced supply instead of increased supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Demand has a direct effect on supply and rainfall. Yield per acre has a direct effect on supply. Supply has a direct effect on rainfall. Demand is unobserved.\nWe know that increased demand or increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand or increased supply causes high rainfall. We observed the farm has an increased yield per acre and the demand is high.\nWould there is low rainfall if increased supply instead of reduced supply?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20455, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes having a brother. male gender or having a brother causes recovery. We observed the patient is not male.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if having a brother instead of not having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20456, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes having a brother. male gender or having a brother causes recovery. We observed the patient is male.\nWould the patient does recover if not having a brother instead of having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20458, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes having a brother. male gender or having a brother causes recovery. We observed the patient is male.\nWould the patient does recover if having a brother instead of not having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes having a brother. male gender and having a brother causes recovery. We observed the patient is not male.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if having a brother instead of not having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20466, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes having a brother. male gender and having a brother causes recovery. We observed the patient is male.\nWould the patient does recover if having a brother instead of not having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20474, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes not having a brother. male gender and having a brother causes recovery. We observed the patient is male.\nWould the patient does recover if having a brother instead of not having a brother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20475, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes not having a brother. male gender and having a brother causes recovery. We observed the patient is male.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if having a brother instead of not having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20479, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on having a brother and recovery. Having a brother has a direct effect on recovery.\nWe know that male gender causes not having a brother. male gender or having a brother causes recovery. We observed the patient is not male.\nWould the patient doesn't recover if having a brother instead of not having a brother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20486, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nWe know that old age causes high hospital bill. old age and high hospital bill causes freckles. We observed the patient is young.\nWould the patient has freckles if high hospital bill instead of low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20490, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nWe know that old age causes high hospital bill. old age and high hospital bill causes freckles. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient has freckles if high hospital bill instead of low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20493, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nWe know that old age causes low hospital bill. old age and high hospital bill causes freckles. We observed the patient is young.\nWould the patient has no freckles if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20494, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nWe know that old age causes low hospital bill. old age and high hospital bill causes freckles. We observed the patient is young.\nWould the patient has freckles if high hospital bill instead of low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20496, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nWe know that old age causes low hospital bill. old age and high hospital bill causes freckles. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient has freckles if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20501, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nWe know that old age causes high hospital bill. old age or high hospital bill causes freckles. We observed the patient is young.\nWould the patient has no freckles if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20504, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nWe know that old age causes high hospital bill. old age or high hospital bill causes freckles. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient has freckles if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20506, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nWe know that old age causes high hospital bill. old age or high hospital bill causes freckles. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient has freckles if high hospital bill instead of low hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nWe know that old age causes low hospital bill. old age or high hospital bill causes freckles. We observed the patient is young.\nWould the patient has freckles if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20513, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Age has a direct effect on hospital costs and freckles. Hospital costs has a direct effect on freckles.\nWe know that old age causes low hospital bill. old age or high hospital bill causes freckles. We observed the patient is old.\nWould the patient has no freckles if low hospital bill instead of high hospital bill?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20516, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives no treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes thick lips. We observed the patient has a small kidney stone.\nWould the patient has thick lips if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20519, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives no treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes thick lips. We observed the patient has a small kidney stone.\nWould the patient has thin lips if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20525, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives no treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes thick lips. We observed the patient has a small kidney stone.\nWould the patient has thin lips if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20527, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives no treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes thick lips. We observed the patient has a small kidney stone.\nWould the patient has thin lips if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20528, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives no treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes thick lips. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient has thick lips if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives no treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes thick lips. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient has thick lips if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20531, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives no treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes thick lips. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient has thin lips if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20533, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes thick lips. We observed the patient has a small kidney stone.\nWould the patient has thin lips if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20536, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes thick lips. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient has thick lips if receives no treatment instead of receives treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20538, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes thick lips. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient has thick lips if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20539, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone or receives treatment causes thick lips. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient has thin lips if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20546, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kidney stone size has a direct effect on treatment and lip thickness. Treatment has a direct effect on lip thickness.\nWe know that large kidney stone causes receives treatment. large kidney stone and receives treatment causes thick lips. We observed the patient has a large kidney stone.\nWould the patient has thick lips if receives treatment instead of receives no treatment?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20550, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes vaccine refusal. pre-conditions or getting the vaccine causes being lactose intolerant. We observed the person has no pre-conditions.\nWould the person is lactose intolerant if getting the vaccine instead of vaccine refusal?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20554, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes vaccine refusal. pre-conditions or getting the vaccine causes being lactose intolerant. We observed the person has pre-conditions.\nWould the person is lactose intolerant if getting the vaccine instead of vaccine refusal?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20555, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes vaccine refusal. pre-conditions or getting the vaccine causes being lactose intolerant. We observed the person has pre-conditions.\nWould the person is not lactose intolerant if getting the vaccine instead of vaccine refusal?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20561, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes getting the vaccine. pre-conditions and getting the vaccine causes being lactose intolerant. We observed the person has pre-conditions.\nWould the person is not lactose intolerant if vaccine refusal instead of getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20562, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes getting the vaccine. pre-conditions and getting the vaccine causes being lactose intolerant. We observed the person has pre-conditions.\nWould the person is lactose intolerant if getting the vaccine instead of vaccine refusal?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes getting the vaccine. pre-conditions and getting the vaccine causes being lactose intolerant. We observed the person has pre-conditions.\nWould the person is not lactose intolerant if getting the vaccine instead of vaccine refusal?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20566, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes getting the vaccine. pre-conditions or getting the vaccine causes being lactose intolerant. We observed the person has no pre-conditions.\nWould the person is lactose intolerant if getting the vaccine instead of vaccine refusal?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20568, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes getting the vaccine. pre-conditions or getting the vaccine causes being lactose intolerant. We observed the person has pre-conditions.\nWould the person is lactose intolerant if vaccine refusal instead of getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20572, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes vaccine refusal. pre-conditions and getting the vaccine causes being lactose intolerant. We observed the person has no pre-conditions.\nWould the person is lactose intolerant if vaccine refusal instead of getting the vaccine?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20578, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pre-conditions has a direct effect on vaccination and lactose intolerance. Vaccination has a direct effect on lactose intolerance.\nWe know that pre-conditions causes vaccine refusal. pre-conditions and getting the vaccine causes being lactose intolerant. We observed the person has pre-conditions.\nWould the person is lactose intolerant if getting the vaccine instead of vaccine refusal?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20581, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking mother or good health causes normal infant birth weight. smoking mother and good health and normal infant birth weight causes freckles. We observed the person has poor health.\nWould the infant has no freckles if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20592, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking mother and good health causes normal infant birth weight. smoking mother or good health or normal infant birth weight causes freckles. We observed the person has good health.\nWould the infant has freckles if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20595, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking mother and good health causes normal infant birth weight. smoking mother or good health or normal infant birth weight causes freckles. We observed the person has good health.\nWould the infant has no freckles if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20602, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking mother and good health causes normal infant birth weight. smoking mother and good health and normal infant birth weight causes freckles. We observed the person has good health.\nWould the infant has freckles if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20605, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Health condition has a direct effect on infant's birth weight and freckles. Infant's birth weight has a direct effect on freckles. Health condition is unobserved.\nWe know that smoking mother or good health causes normal infant birth weight. smoking mother or good health or normal infant birth weight causes freckles. We observed the person has poor health.\nWould the infant has no freckles if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20613, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person is not allergic to peanuts if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20615, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person is not allergic to peanuts if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person is not allergic to peanuts if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20618, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person is allergic to peanuts if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20620, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person is allergic to peanuts if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20621, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person is not allergic to peanuts if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20622, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person is allergic to peanuts if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20623, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person is not allergic to peanuts if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person is allergic to peanuts if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20625, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person is not allergic to peanuts if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20626, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female or high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person is allergic to peanuts if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20629, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person is not allergic to peanuts if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20630, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person is allergic to peanuts if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person is allergic to peanuts if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20633, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes absence of tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person is not allergic to peanuts if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person is allergic to peanuts if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20638, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person is allergic to peanuts if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20639, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is non-female.\nWould the person is not allergic to peanuts if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person is allergic to peanuts if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20641, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person is not allergic to peanuts if nonsmoking instead of smoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gender has a direct effect on smoking and peanut allergy. Smoking has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on peanut allergy. Gender is unobserved.\nWe know that female causes smoking. smoking causes high tar deposit. female and high tar deposit causes being allergic to peanuts. We observed the person is female.\nWould the person is allergic to peanuts if smoking instead of nonsmoking?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20651, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that listening to jazz or high pollution causes smoking. listening to jazz or high pollution or smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with high pollution.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if listening to jazz instead of not listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20654, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that listening to jazz or high pollution causes smoking. listening to jazz and high pollution and smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with low pollution.\nWould the person has lung cancer if listening to jazz instead of not listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20656, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that listening to jazz or high pollution causes smoking. listening to jazz and high pollution and smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with high pollution.\nWould the person has lung cancer if not listening to jazz instead of listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20659, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that listening to jazz or high pollution causes smoking. listening to jazz and high pollution and smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with high pollution.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if listening to jazz instead of not listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20663, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that listening to jazz and high pollution causes smoking. listening to jazz or high pollution or smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with low pollution.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if listening to jazz instead of not listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20674, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Pollution has a direct effect on smoking and lung cancer. Smoking has a direct effect on lung cancer. Pollution is unobserved.\nWe know that listening to jazz and high pollution causes smoking. listening to jazz and high pollution and smoking causes lung cancer. We observed the person lives in a place with high pollution.\nWould the person has lung cancer if listening to jazz instead of not listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20676, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that listening to jazz causes absence of tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes lung cancer.\nWould the person has lung cancer if not listening to jazz instead of listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20677, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that listening to jazz causes absence of tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes lung cancer.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if not listening to jazz instead of listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that listening to jazz causes absence of tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes lung cancer.\nWould the person has lung cancer if listening to jazz instead of not listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20679, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that listening to jazz causes absence of tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes lung cancer.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if listening to jazz instead of not listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20680, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that listening to jazz causes absence of tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes absence of lung cancer.\nWould the person has lung cancer if not listening to jazz instead of listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20681, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that listening to jazz causes absence of tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes absence of lung cancer.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if not listening to jazz instead of listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20682, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that listening to jazz causes absence of tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes absence of lung cancer.\nWould the person has lung cancer if listening to jazz instead of not listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20685, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that listening to jazz causes high tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes lung cancer.\nWould the person has no lung cancer if not listening to jazz instead of listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that listening to jazz causes high tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes absence of lung cancer.\nWould the person has lung cancer if not listening to jazz instead of listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20690, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Listening to jazz has a direct effect on tar deposit. Tar deposit has a direct effect on lung cancer.\nWe know that listening to jazz causes high tar deposit, and we know that high tar deposit causes absence of lung cancer.\nWould the person has lung cancer if listening to jazz instead of not listening to jazz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20698, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active or smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is low and confounder active.\nWould the infant has brown eyes if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active or smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is high and confounder active.\nWould the infant has brown eyes if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20702, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active and smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is low and confounder inactive.\nWould the infant has brown eyes if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20703, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active and smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is low and confounder inactive.\nWould the infant has brown eyes if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20709, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active and smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is high and confounder inactive.\nWould the infant has blue eyes if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20714, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active and high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active and smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is high and confounder active.\nWould the infant has blue eyes if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20715, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active or smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is low and confounder inactive.\nWould the infant has brown eyes if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active or smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is low and confounder active.\nWould the infant has brown eyes if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20723, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active or smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is high and confounder inactive.\nWould the infant has brown eyes if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20727, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active or smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is high and confounder active.\nWould the infant has brown eyes if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20728, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active or smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is high and confounder active.\nWould the infant has blue eyes if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20730, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active and smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is low and confounder inactive.\nWould the infant has blue eyes if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20732, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active and smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is low and confounder active.\nWould the infant has blue eyes if nonsmoking mother instead of smoking mother?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20733, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Unobserved confounders has a direct effect on maternal smoking status and brown eyes. Cigarette tax has a direct effect on maternal smoking status. Maternal smoking status has a direct effect on brown eyes. Unobserved confounders is unobserved.\nWe know that confounder active or high cigarette tax causes smoking mother. confounder active and smoking mother causes brown eyes. We observed the cigarette tax is low and confounder active.\nWould the infant has blue eyes if smoking mother instead of nonsmoking mother?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20742, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes liking spicy food. high poverty and liking spicy food causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a local water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person avoids cholera if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20743, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes liking spicy food. high poverty and liking spicy food causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a local water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person gets cholera if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20744, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes liking spicy food. high poverty and liking spicy food causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a local water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person avoids cholera if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20753, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty or global water company causes liking spicy food. high poverty or liking spicy food causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a local water company and the region has low poverty.\nWould the person avoids cholera if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20757, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty or global water company causes liking spicy food. high poverty or liking spicy food causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a local water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person avoids cholera if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20769, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes liking spicy food. high poverty or liking spicy food causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a global water company and the region has low poverty.\nWould the person gets cholera if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20772, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes liking spicy food. high poverty or liking spicy food causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a global water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person gets cholera if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20774, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty and global water company causes liking spicy food. high poverty or liking spicy food causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a global water company and the region has high poverty.\nWould the person gets cholera if liking spicy food instead of not liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20775, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Poverty has a direct effect on liking spicy food and cholera. Water company has a direct effect on liking spicy food. Liking spicy food has a direct effect on cholera. Poverty is unobserved.\nWe know that high poverty or global water company causes liking spicy food. high poverty and liking spicy food causes cholera contraction. We observed the person is served by a local water company and the region has low poverty.\nWould the person avoids cholera if not liking spicy food instead of liking spicy food?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20786, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 48%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 36%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20787, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 94%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 48%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 36%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20789, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 70%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20795, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 62%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 44%.\nDoes rixq positively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20799, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 53%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 54%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20801, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 57%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 23%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 31%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20804, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 47%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 28%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20805, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 47%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 28%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20806, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to zuph. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20808, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 88%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 91%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20811, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 82%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 88%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 91%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20820, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 47%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 55%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 43%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20821, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 47%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 29%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 20%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20824, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 22%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 16%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20830, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to zuph. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20831, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zuph.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20835, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 5%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 98%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 98%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20836, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 5%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 98%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 98%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20837, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nFor those who are zuph, the correlation between rixq and xevu is -0.08.\nIf we look at those who are zuph, does it mean that rixq affects xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20850, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 51%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 48%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 48%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20853, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 51%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 64%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 13%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 75%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 38%.\nIf we look at those who are zuph, does the chance of xevu increase when rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20855, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to zuph. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20859, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to zuph. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20861, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zuph.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20863, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 59%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 34%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 3%. The overall probability of zuph is 90%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20871, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 19%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 59%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 63%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20875, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 70%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 8%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 38%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 100%. The overall probability of zuph is 27%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20876, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 35%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 29%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20883, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 45%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 49%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 10%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 93%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 75%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 80%. The overall probability of zuph is 36%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 71%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 28%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 88%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20890, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 94%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 35%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 10%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 33%. The overall probability of zuph is 20%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20892, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 15%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 85%. The overall probability of zuph is 84%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20893, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 15%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 85%. The overall probability of zuph is 84%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20897, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 32%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 35%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 21%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 74%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 8%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20907, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to zuph. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20908, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zuph.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20921, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to zuph. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20924, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 82%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 46%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20926, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 36%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 53%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 16%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20946, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 83%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 8%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 36%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20950, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to zuph. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 50%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 5%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 40%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 53%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 38%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 51%. The overall probability of rixq is 20%.\nDoes rixq positively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20959, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 50%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 5%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 40%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 53%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 38%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 51%. The overall probability of rixq is 20%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 20%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 37%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 8%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20963, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 28%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 42%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 43%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20967, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20968, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 10%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 62%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 69%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20973, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 16%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 13%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 14%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 77%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 52%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 16%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 13%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 14%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 77%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 52%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 77%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 52%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 16%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 13%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 14%. The overall probability of rixq is 97%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20976, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 97%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 13%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 22%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20977, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 97%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 13%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 22%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 36%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 38%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 40%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 53%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 35%. The overall probability of rixq is 37%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 40%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 53%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 35%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 36%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 38%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20984, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 41%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 66%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 61%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 34%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20987, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 48%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 43%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 64%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20988, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 48%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 43%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 64%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20989, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20990, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 79%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 50%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 33%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 56%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 53%. The overall probability of rixq is 48%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20991, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 33%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 56%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 53%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 79%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 50%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20992, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 48%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 24%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 26%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20993, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20995, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 84%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 43%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 62%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 56%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 59%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 56%. The overall probability of rixq is 9%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 20996, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 84%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 43%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 62%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 56%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 59%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 56%. The overall probability of rixq is 9%.\nDoes rixq positively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 20999, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 65%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 49%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 48%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 65%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 17%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 31%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21004, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21005, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 93%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 31%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 92%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 52%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 93%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 52%. The overall probability of rixq is 53%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21006, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 92%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 52%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 93%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 52%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 93%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 31%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 93%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 31%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 92%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 52%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 93%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 52%. The overall probability of rixq is 53%.\nDoes rixq positively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21013, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21021, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are zuph, the probability of xevu is 55%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of rixq is 30%. For those who are zuph, the probability of rixq is 11%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21027, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 62%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 17%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 31%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21032, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 67%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 19%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 40%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 67%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 19%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 40%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21034, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21044, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 54%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 15%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 46%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21045, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21057, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 20%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 15%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21059, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 70%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 20%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 15%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21060, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 70%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 20%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 15%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21061, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 70%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 6%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 10%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21062, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 70%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 6%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 10%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21063, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zuph.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21066, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 33%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 90%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 36%. For those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 85%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 92%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 78%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 60%. The overall probability of swoy is 83%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through zuph, would rixq negatively affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21069, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 39%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 60%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21071, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to zuph. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zuph.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21083, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 15%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 99%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 2%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 36%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 11%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 48%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 74%. The overall probability of swoy is 4%.\nDoes rixq positively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21085, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 15%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 99%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 2%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 36%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 11%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 48%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 74%. The overall probability of swoy is 4%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through zuph, would rixq positively affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21088, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 83%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 52%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21089, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 83%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 52%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21092, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 61%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 83%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 52%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 48%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 33%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 28%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zuph.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21103, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 76%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 60%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21104, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 96%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 70%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 49%. For those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 27%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 84%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 25%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 94%. The overall probability of swoy is 14%.\nDoes rixq positively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21105, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 96%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 70%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 49%. For those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 27%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 84%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 25%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 94%. The overall probability of swoy is 14%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21106, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 4%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 76%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 60%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21110, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21111, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 79%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21114, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 29%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 79%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 52%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 79%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21123, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 35%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 66%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 84%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21127, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21128, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 45%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 57%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21130, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 45%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 57%.\nDoes rixq positively affect xevu through zuph and swoy?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21131, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 45%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 57%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph and swoy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21136, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 46%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 49%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21137, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21141, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 38%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 62%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph and swoy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21143, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 44%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 21%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 28%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21148, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 34%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 61%.\nDoes rixq positively affect xevu through zuph and swoy?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21150, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 35%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 22%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 21%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21151, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 35%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 22%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 21%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21152, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 35%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 31%. The overall probability of zuph is 20%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21153, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 52%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 17%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 16%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21154, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 80%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 43%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 79%. The overall probability of zuph is 64%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21155, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 28%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 43%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 80%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21157, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 28%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 31%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 22%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21158, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21159, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21160, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 30%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 74%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 87%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of swoy is 63%. For those who are rixq, the probability of swoy is 72%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21161, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 30%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 74%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 87%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of swoy is 63%. For those who are rixq, the probability of swoy is 72%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 18%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 33%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 15%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21164, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21165, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 32%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 37%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 22%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21169, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 9%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 19%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 48%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of swoy is 56%. For those who are rixq, the probability of swoy is 67%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21171, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 78%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 30%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 39%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21172, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 78%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 7%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 30%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21173, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 57%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 80%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 64%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 62%. The overall probability of zuph is 6%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21174, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 55%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 71%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 84%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of swoy is 15%. For those who are rixq, the probability of swoy is 9%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21175, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 68%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 58%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 80%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21176, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 68%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 18%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 55%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21177, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21178, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 90%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 41%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 79%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 35%. The overall probability of zuph is 99%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21179, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 17%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 79%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 35%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21180, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 17%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 65%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 6%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21182, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 51%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 25%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 56%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 21%. The overall probability of zuph is 84%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21183, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 62%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 9%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 15%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 59%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of swoy is 16%. For those who are rixq, the probability of swoy is 13%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21184, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 63%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 21%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21186, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21188, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 96%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 76%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 88%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 20%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of swoy is 57%. For those who are rixq, the probability of swoy is 40%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21189, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 69%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 26%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 42%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21190, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21191, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21192, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 19%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 83%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 15%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of swoy is 83%. For those who are rixq, the probability of swoy is 72%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21193, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 45%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 19%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21194, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zuph.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21195, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 55%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21197, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 92%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 55%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21207, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 40%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 9%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 22%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21208, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 40%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 9%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 22%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21216, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 4%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 7%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 2%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 13%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 39%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21220, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 4%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 13%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 39%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21225, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 64%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 43%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 28%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21226, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 64%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 43%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 28%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21234, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 88%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 3%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 25%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21235, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to swoq. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21240, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 93%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 86%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21243, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to swoq. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21244, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 93%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 89%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21246, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 93%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 89%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21250, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21251, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 79%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 77%.\nDoes kwox negatively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21254, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21257, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 67%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 18%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 57%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21258, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 67%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 18%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 57%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21259, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to swoq. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21260, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 86%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 86%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21261, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 86%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 86%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21262, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 86%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 86%.\nDoes kwox positively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21268, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 27%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 69%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21272, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 26%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 20%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 18%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 12%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 72%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 9%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 60%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 56%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21281, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 65%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 62%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 83%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 78%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 71%.\nIf we look at those who are swoq, does the chance of kwoz decrease when kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21282, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21283, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nFor those who are swoq, the correlation between kwox and kwoz is 0.12.\nIf we look at those who are swoq, does it mean that kwox does not affect kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 32%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 7%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 7%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21285, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 32%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 7%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 7%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21286, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to swoq. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21288, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 97%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 49%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 49%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21292, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21293, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nFor those who are swoq, the correlation between kwox and kwoz is 0.00.\nIf we look at those who are swoq, does it mean that kwox affects kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21294, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nFor those who are swoq, the correlation between kwox and kwoz is 0.00.\nIf we look at those who are swoq, does it mean that kwox does not affect kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21298, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 90%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 57%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 4%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 18%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 31%.\nIf we look at those who are swoq, does the chance of kwoz decrease when kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21300, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to swoq. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21306, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nFor those who are swoq, the correlation between kwox and kwoz is -0.06.\nIf we look at those who are swoq, does it mean that kwox does not affect kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21307, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 85%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 31%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 43%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 66%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 36%.\nIf we look at those who are swoq, does the chance of kwoz decrease when kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21320, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 23%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 68%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 13%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21324, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 29%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 10%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 30%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21327, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 73%. For those who are not swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 1%. For those who are swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 86%. For those who are swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 1%. The overall probability of swoq is 64%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 15%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 82%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 1%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21338, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21352, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 87%. For those who are not swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 9%. For those who are swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 81%. For those who are swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 83%. The overall probability of swoq is 10%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21353, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 71%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 25%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 9%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21355, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 41%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 95%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 98%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 1%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 93%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 60%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 94%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 15%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 30%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 9%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 37%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through swoq, would kwox positively affect kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21367, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 72%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 6%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 21%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 10%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21387, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 81%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 2%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 44%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21389, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 43%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 93%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 95%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 97%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 20%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 16%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through swoq, would kwox negatively affect kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21394, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 36%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 56%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21396, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 53%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 31%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 69%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 33%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 77%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 35%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through swoq, would kwox negatively affect kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21397, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 10%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 36%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 56%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21411, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 43%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 9%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 10%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 21%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 96%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 46%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through swoq, would kwox negatively affect kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21418, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 86%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 50%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 17%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 72%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 17%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 67%. The overall probability of kwox is 74%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21419, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 17%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 72%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 17%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 67%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 86%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 50%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21420, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 17%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 72%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 17%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 67%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 86%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 50%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 33%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 62%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 37%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21424, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 33%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 42%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 12%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21427, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 73%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 87%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 24%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 59%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 35%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 41%. The overall probability of kwox is 47%.\nDoes kwox positively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21429, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 57%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 32%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 29%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 63%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 46%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 71%. The overall probability of kwox is 78%.\nDoes kwox negatively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21431, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 92%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 8%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 35%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 50%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 37%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 51%. The overall probability of kwox is 18%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21433, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 18%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 40%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 7%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21435, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 76%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 17%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 92%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 22%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 84%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 11%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21436, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 84%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 11%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 76%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 17%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 92%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 22%. The overall probability of kwox is 51%.\nDoes kwox positively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21437, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 84%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 11%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 76%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 17%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 92%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 22%. The overall probability of kwox is 51%.\nDoes kwox negatively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21439, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 82%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 98%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 45%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 64%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 51%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 94%. The overall probability of kwox is 39%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 39%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 37%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 36%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21442, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to muvy.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21443, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 73%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 74%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 20%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 69%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 33%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 41%. The overall probability of kwox is 53%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21447, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 53%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 26%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 21%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21448, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 53%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 26%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 21%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21450, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to muvy. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 63%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 12%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 68%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 50%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 67%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 53%. The overall probability of kwox is 53%.\nDoes kwox negatively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21454, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 53%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 57%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 65%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21457, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to muvy. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21459, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 6%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 68%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 90%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 91%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 90%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 69%. The overall probability of kwox is 28%.\nDoes kwox negatively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 28%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 65%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 21%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to muvy.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21469, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 46%. For those who are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 48%. For those who are not swoq, the probability of kwox is 75%. For those who are swoq, the probability of kwox is 80%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21477, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to muvy.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21481, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 51%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 20%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 20%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21486, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 45%. For those who are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 38%. For those who are not swoq, the probability of kwox is 29%. For those who are swoq, the probability of kwox is 41%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21494, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 60%. For those who are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 54%. For those who are not swoq, the probability of kwox is 29%. For those who are swoq, the probability of kwox is 8%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21497, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 51%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 21%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 70%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21502, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 72%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 25%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 45%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 78%. For those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of swoq is 3%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of swoq is 19%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of swoq is 77%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of swoq is 31%. The overall probability of muvy is 31%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through swoq, would kwox positively affect kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21503, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 72%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 25%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 45%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 78%. For those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of swoq is 3%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of swoq is 19%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of swoq is 77%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of swoq is 31%. The overall probability of muvy is 31%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through swoq, would kwox negatively affect kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21505, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 89%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 7%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 59%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21516, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21517, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 27%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 27%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21526, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 67%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 33%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21535, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21550, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 86%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 92%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 93%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 55%. For those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of swoq is 50%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of swoq is 8%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of swoq is 93%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of swoq is 27%. The overall probability of muvy is 96%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through swoq, would kwox negatively affect kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21551, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 11%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 86%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 81%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21556, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 58%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 36%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21559, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to muvy. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21560, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to muvy.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21561, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 54%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 31%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 74%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 14%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 23%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21570, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 81%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 7%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 36%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21576, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 31%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 21%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 9%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21578, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 61%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 81%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to muvy.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21588, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 20%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 28%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 8%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21589, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to muvy. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21591, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 34%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 51%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 56%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 56%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21594, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 56%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 56%.\nDoes kwox negatively affect kwoz through swoq and muvy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21595, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 73%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 56%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 56%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 73%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 56%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 56%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to muvy.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21598, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 34%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 55%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21601, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 61%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 34%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 55%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21602, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 61%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 34%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 55%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to muvy.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21608, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 64%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 99%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 66%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 6%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of muvy is 79%. For those who are kwox, the probability of muvy is 71%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 66%. For those who are not swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 62%. For those who are swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 65%. For those who are swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 84%. The overall probability of swoq is 72%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21612, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to muvy.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21614, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 85%. For those who are not swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 91%. For those who are swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 77%. For those who are swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 92%. The overall probability of swoq is 4%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21615, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 86%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 70%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 91%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 92%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of muvy is 9%. For those who are kwox, the probability of muvy is 8%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 39%. For those who are not swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 19%. For those who are swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 28%. For those who are swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 30%. The overall probability of swoq is 77%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21619, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 32%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 28%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21620, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 32%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 28%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21621, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 76%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 8%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 21%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21622, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 84%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 9%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 27%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21623, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to muvy.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to muvy. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21625, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 22%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 92%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 9%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 36%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of muvy is 38%. For those who are kwox, the probability of muvy is 24%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21627, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 73%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 49%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 16%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 67%. For those who are not swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 10%. For those who are swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 84%. For those who are swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 14%. The overall probability of swoq is 90%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21629, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 67%. For those who are not swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 10%. For those who are swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 84%. For those who are swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 14%. The overall probability of swoq is 90%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 66%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 27%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 9%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 30%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 69%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 13%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21637, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 30%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 48%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 4%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21638, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to muvy.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 43%. For those who are not swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 59%. For those who are swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 44%. For those who are swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 60%. The overall probability of swoq is 80%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21641, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 39%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 47%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 57%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 62%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of muvy is 61%. For those who are kwox, the probability of muvy is 67%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 51%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 44%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 60%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21643, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 51%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 44%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 60%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21644, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 51%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 22%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 30%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21647, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 82%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 32%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21649, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 82%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 82%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 32%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21650, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 82%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 15%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 26%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21652, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21653, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 65%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 63%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21655, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 40%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 65%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 63%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21656, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 40%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 65%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 63%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21666, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 35%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 80%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21671, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 77%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 7%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 25%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21674, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 85%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 42%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 36%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21675, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to swoq. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21676, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 93%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 78%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21677, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 93%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 78%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 93%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 78%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21681, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 52%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 55%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 45%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 15%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 15%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21694, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21701, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 35%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 75%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21704, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 96%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 57%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 56%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21712, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 50%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 64%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 62%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21713, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 50%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 32%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 31%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 61%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 62%.\nDoes xevo negatively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 27%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 24%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 36%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 27%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 24%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21721, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 36%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 27%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 24%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21732, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 50%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 75%.\nDoes xevo negatively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 48%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 67%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21740, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 22%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 48%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 67%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21742, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21743, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 79%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 69%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 69%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21746, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 14%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 6%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 6%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21749, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 14%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 6%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 5%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 1%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 19%.\nIf we look at those who are tijv, does the chance of gyzp increase when xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21752, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 48%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 86%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 81%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 78%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 89%.\nIf we look at those who are tijv, does the chance of gyzp increase when xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21755, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 0%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 34%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 34%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21757, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21758, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nFor those who are tijv, the correlation between xevo and gyzp is 0.00.\nIf we look at those who are tijv, does it mean that xevo affects gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21762, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 7%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 14%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 97%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 18%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 7%.\nIf we look at those who are tijv, does the chance of gyzp increase when xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21763, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 20%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 58%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 58%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21769, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 11%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 41%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 41%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21772, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 69%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 74%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 74%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21779, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 41%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 90%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 20%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 26%. The overall probability of tijv is 87%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 24%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 49%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 66%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21787, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 57%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 69%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 72%. The overall probability of tijv is 87%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21788, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 57%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 69%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 72%. The overall probability of tijv is 87%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21789, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 21%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 70%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21795, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 14%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 11%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 2%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 61%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 97%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 84%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 44%. The overall probability of tijv is 84%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21804, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 29%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 40%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 39%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21807, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 87%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 4%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 63%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21811, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 43%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 13%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 55%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 73%. The overall probability of tijv is 31%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21812, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 43%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 13%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 55%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 73%. The overall probability of tijv is 31%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21816, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 67%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 72%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 28%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 76%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 71%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 66%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21821, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21822, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 72%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 7%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21823, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 72%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 7%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21826, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 12%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 69%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 78%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 22%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 25%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 57%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21829, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 7%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 26%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 47%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21831, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 82%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 60%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21835, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 8%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 87%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21837, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 8%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 87%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21841, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 84%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 1%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 73%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21850, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21864, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 29%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 30%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 40%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 50%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 24%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 55%. The overall probability of xevo is 50%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 50%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 43%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 34%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21867, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 50%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 21%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 17%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21868, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 29%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 62%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 60%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 79%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 57%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 78%. The overall probability of xevo is 44%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21869, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 60%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 79%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 57%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 78%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 29%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 62%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21871, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21872, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 19%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 50%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 59%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 58%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 75%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21873, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 19%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 50%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 59%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 58%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 75%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21874, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 58%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 75%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 19%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 50%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 59%. The overall probability of xevo is 45%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21876, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 53%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 52%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 54%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 61%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 55%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 61%. The overall probability of xevo is 54%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21877, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 53%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 52%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 54%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 61%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 55%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 61%. The overall probability of xevo is 54%.\nDoes xevo negatively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21878, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 54%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 58%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 58%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21879, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 54%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 27%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 31%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21881, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 85%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 48%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 81%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 41%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 93%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21883, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 30%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 42%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 23%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21885, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijw. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 11%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 22%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 25%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 11%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 20%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 3%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21889, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 4%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 38%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 55%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 17%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 35%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 15%. The overall probability of xevo is 18%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21890, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 4%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 38%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 55%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 17%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 35%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 15%. The overall probability of xevo is 18%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21892, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 18%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 44%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 5%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21893, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 81%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 89%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 60%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 17%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 67%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 6%. The overall probability of xevo is 49%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21894, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 81%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 89%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 60%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 17%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 67%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 6%. The overall probability of xevo is 49%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21895, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 81%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 89%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 60%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 17%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 67%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 6%. The overall probability of xevo is 49%.\nDoes xevo negatively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21896, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 40%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 59%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 44%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 55%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 67%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 39%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21897, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 67%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 39%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 40%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 59%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 44%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 55%. The overall probability of xevo is 47%.\nDoes xevo negatively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21898, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 47%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 28%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 23%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21900, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 41%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 70%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 50%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 64%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 49%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 80%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21901, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 36%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 55%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 61%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 86%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 60%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 48%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21909, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 58%. For those who are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 61%. For those who are not tijv, the probability of xevo is 44%. For those who are tijv, the probability of xevo is 52%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21911, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 45%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 41%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 78%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21915, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 46%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 30%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 34%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21932, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 53%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 11%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 58%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21933, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 53%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 5%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 31%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21939, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 34%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 30%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 8%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21940, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21948, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 68%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 18%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 35%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21953, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 66%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 96%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 55%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 15%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 96%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 44%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 66%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 74%. The overall probability of tijw is 14%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through tijv, would xevo negatively affect gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 22%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 86%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 50%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 54%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 10%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 35%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 33%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 32%. The overall probability of tijw is 83%.\nDoes xevo negatively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21968, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 37%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 81%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21970, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 48%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 29%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 80%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 79%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 46%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 89%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 33%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 70%. The overall probability of tijw is 8%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through tijv, would xevo negatively affect gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21972, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 60%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 16%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 48%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 46%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 31%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 3%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21977, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 40%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 28%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 36%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 40%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 17%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 14%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21982, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21987, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 50%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 72%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 24%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 86%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 76%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 56%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 25%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 83%. The overall probability of tijw is 94%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through tijv, would xevo negatively affect gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21993, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 39%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 78%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 21994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 39%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 78%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv and tijw?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21995, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 48%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 39%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 78%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 21996, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 48%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 39%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 78%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22000, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 31%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 44%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 56%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 80%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 57%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22004, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 41%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 47%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 23%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 90%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 79%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv and tijw?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 76%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 62%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22012, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 76%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 62%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv and tijw?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22014, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 39%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 76%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 62%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22024, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 35%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 45%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 17%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22025, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 35%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 45%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 17%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22026, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 80%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 36%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22028, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 80%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 36%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv and tijw?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22029, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 80%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 36%.\nDoes xevo negatively affect gyzp through tijv and tijw?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22030, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 81%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 80%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 36%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22031, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 81%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 80%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 36%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22032, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijw. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22034, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 94%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 15%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 45%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22036, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 32%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 80%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 17%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 58%. The overall probability of tijv is 90%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22038, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 74%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 19%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 60%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22039, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijw. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22040, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 63%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 82%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 18%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 84%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijw is 31%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijw is 49%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22041, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 87%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 69%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 50%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22042, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 87%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 69%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 50%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22043, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22046, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 38%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 65%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 94%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 98%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijw is 81%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijw is 33%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22049, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 2%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 37%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 61%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 94%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijw is 56%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijw is 66%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22050, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 2%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 37%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 61%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 94%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijw is 56%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijw is 66%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22053, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 93%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 1%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 77%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22054, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22056, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijw. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22057, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 87%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 61%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 92%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 73%. The overall probability of tijv is 13%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22059, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 74%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 95%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 30%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 78%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijw is 67%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijw is 67%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22060, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 33%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 59%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 21%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22061, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 33%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 59%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 21%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22062, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22064, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 49%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 16%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 52%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 22%. The overall probability of tijv is 24%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22065, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 44%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 53%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 7%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 23%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijw is 65%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijw is 73%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22068, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 82%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 71%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 23%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22071, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 70%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 15%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 82%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 70%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 5%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 57%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22073, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijw. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22078, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 73%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 68%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 44%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22079, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 73%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 68%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 44%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22080, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22082, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 55%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 74%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22083, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 30%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 83%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22088, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 88%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 4%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 73%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22089, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22096, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22097, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 91%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 15%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22098, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 82%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 30%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22101, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22102, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 67%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 32%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 11%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22108, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22111, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 77%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 22%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22112, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 70%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 77%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 22%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22114, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22120, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 87%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 23%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 3%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22127, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 70%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 60%.\nDoes yomx positively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22128, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22131, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 74%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 29%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22134, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22135, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22138, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 41%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 87%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 81%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22141, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 83%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 55%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22143, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 83%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 9%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 46%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22144, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22147, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 33%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 32%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22151, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22153, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 42%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 45%.\nDoes yomx positively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22155, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 90%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 4%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 41%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22156, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 9%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22159, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 31%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 31%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 3%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22160, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22161, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 36%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 93%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 93%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22163, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nFor those who are gwet, the correlation between yomx and xevu is 0.14.\nIf we look at those who are gwet, does it mean that yomx does not affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22168, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 33%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 20%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 68%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 30%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 17%.\nIf we look at those who are gwet, does the chance of xevu decrease when yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22170, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 95%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 22%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 59%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 7%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 51%.\nIf we look at those who are gwet, does the chance of xevu decrease when yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22175, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nFor those who are gwet, the correlation between yomx and xevu is 0.87.\nIf we look at those who are gwet, does it mean that yomx does not affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22177, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 88%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 73%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 73%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22183, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nFor those who are gwet, the correlation between yomx and xevu is -0.07.\nIf we look at those who are gwet, does it mean that yomx affects xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22187, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22192, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 45%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 98%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 8%. The overall probability of gwet is 28%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22199, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22200, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 78%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 92%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 39%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 48%. The overall probability of gwet is 45%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22201, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 82%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 63%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 36%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 18%. The overall probability of gwet is 41%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22207, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 86%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 3%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 39%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22208, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 9%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 29%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 5%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 89%. The overall probability of gwet is 20%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22209, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 9%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 29%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 5%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 89%. The overall probability of gwet is 20%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22212, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 73%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 2%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 23%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22220, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22221, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 12%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 75%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 3%. The overall probability of gwet is 87%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22222, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 18%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 57%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 3%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22224, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22239, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 63%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 78%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22240, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 83%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 79%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 56%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 50%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 7%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through gwet, would yomx positively affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22245, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 66%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 99%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 9%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 19%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 99%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 92%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through gwet, would yomx negatively affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22250, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 9%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 21%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22262, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 4%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 8%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 63%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22267, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 51%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 75%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 53%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 35%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 41%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 16%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22270, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22274, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 68%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 14%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 7%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 52%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 68%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 6%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 65%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 11%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 6%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 47%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 21%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 77%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 75%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 76%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 75%. The overall probability of yomx is 18%.\nDoes yomx positively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22285, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22286, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 82%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 9%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 17%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 89%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 50%. The overall probability of yomx is 64%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22287, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 82%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 9%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 17%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 89%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 50%. The overall probability of yomx is 64%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22290, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 64%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 76%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 54%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22291, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 64%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 27%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 35%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22293, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22296, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 94%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 91%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 64%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 8%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22297, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 28%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 36%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22300, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22303, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 26%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 86%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 14%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 57%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 85%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 76%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22304, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 85%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 76%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 26%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 86%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 14%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 57%. The overall probability of yomx is 70%.\nDoes yomx positively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22305, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 85%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 76%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 26%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 86%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 14%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 57%. The overall probability of yomx is 70%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22306, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 70%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 77%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 46%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22308, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22309, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 30%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 16%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 5%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 45%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 6%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 25%. The overall probability of yomx is 42%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22310, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 42%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 17%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 9%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22311, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 42%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 10%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 4%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22312, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 47%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 95%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 51%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 75%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 53%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 78%. The overall probability of yomx is 48%.\nDoes yomx positively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22314, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 39%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 40%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 53%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 21%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22316, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 53%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 21%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 39%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 40%. The overall probability of yomx is 72%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 72%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 11%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 28%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22319, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 32%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 97%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 30%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 47%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 26%. The overall probability of yomx is 57%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22320, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 32%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 97%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 30%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 47%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 26%. The overall probability of yomx is 57%.\nDoes yomx positively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22321, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 57%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 27%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22322, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 57%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 20%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 15%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22323, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 80%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 48%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 47%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 80%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22326, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 22%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 49%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 12%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22328, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 43%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 61%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 47%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 58%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 41%. The overall probability of yomx is 91%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22330, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 43%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 61%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 47%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 58%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 41%. The overall probability of yomx is 91%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22333, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 91%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 5%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 44%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22340, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 92%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 0%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 6%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 37%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 32%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 18%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22354, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are gwet, the probability of xevu is 48%. For those who are not gwet, the probability of yomx is 19%. For those who are gwet, the probability of yomx is 32%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22359, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 60%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 71%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 87%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22364, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 15%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 63%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 28%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 37%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 21%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 65%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22376, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22394, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 62%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 49%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 61%. For those who are not yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of gwet is 94%. For those who are not yomx and are cwoi, the probability of gwet is 36%. For those who are yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of gwet is 61%. For those who are yomx and are cwoi, the probability of gwet is 53%. The overall probability of cwoi is 47%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through gwet, would yomx negatively affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22405, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 21%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 29%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 85%. For those who are not yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of gwet is 15%. For those who are not yomx and are cwoi, the probability of gwet is 57%. For those who are yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of gwet is 83%. For those who are yomx and are cwoi, the probability of gwet is 79%. The overall probability of cwoi is 4%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22412, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22421, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 88%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 36%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22425, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 8%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 27%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet and cwoi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 36%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 8%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 27%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22429, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 68%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 86%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22431, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 41%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 68%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 86%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22433, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 28%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 45%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22434, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 28%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 45%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet and cwoi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22438, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22440, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 72%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 72%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22442, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 72%.\nDoes yomx positively affect xevu through gwet and cwoi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22445, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 61%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 51%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22448, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 15%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 52%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 8%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22450, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 71%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 86%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 71%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 86%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22459, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 55%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 48%.\nDoes yomx positively affect xevu through gwet and cwoi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22461, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 72%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 15%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 35%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22464, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 27%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 75%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 74%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22469, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of xevu is 79%. For those who are not yomx and are cwoi, the probability of xevu is 1%. For those who are yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of xevu is 80%. For those who are yomx and are cwoi, the probability of xevu is 23%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of cwoi is 40%. For those who are yomx, the probability of cwoi is 37%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22470, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 64%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 47%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 59%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22472, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 43%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 68%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 24%. The overall probability of gwet is 69%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22475, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 67%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 21%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 21%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22476, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22477, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 82%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 2%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 63%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22478, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 73%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 10%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 78%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 7%. The overall probability of gwet is 94%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22481, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 22%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 61%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 2%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22482, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22483, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22485, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 78%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 60%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22487, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22488, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 38%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 42%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 54%. The overall probability of gwet is 44%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22489, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 23%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 40%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 51%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22490, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 78%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 68%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 51%. The overall probability of gwet is 73%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22492, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 64%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 24%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 33%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22493, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22495, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are not yomx and are cwoi, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of xevu is 48%. For those who are yomx and are cwoi, the probability of xevu is 58%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of cwoi is 62%. For those who are yomx, the probability of cwoi is 63%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22496, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 45%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 51%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 54%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22497, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 45%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 28%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 24%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22498, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22499, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 15%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 33%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 15%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 37%. The overall probability of gwet is 21%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22503, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22504, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22505, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 76%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 91%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 88%. The overall probability of gwet is 12%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 28%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 76%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 90%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22511, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22518, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 4%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 29%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 32%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22520, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22523, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 92%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 66%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22525, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 78%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 67%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22527, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 16%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 66%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 11%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22532, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 69%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 10%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 14%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22533, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 69%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 10%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 14%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22536, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 77%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 70%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22537, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 48%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 40%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 33%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22543, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 68%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 64%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22545, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 68%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 64%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22548, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 20%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 83%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22549, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 20%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 83%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22551, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 54%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 20%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 83%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22554, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 63%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 61%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22555, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 63%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 61%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22557, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 63%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 61%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22558, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 55%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 63%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 61%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22561, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 55%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 28%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 33%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22562, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 1%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 29%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22571, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 46%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 53%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22572, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 46%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 53%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22575, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 33%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 29%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 19%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22579, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 49%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 36%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 35%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22582, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 86%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 11%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 54%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 70%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 82%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 75%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 74%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 75%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 74%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22600, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 75%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 74%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22601, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22603, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nFor those who are hwax, the correlation between jyka and lirg is -0.79.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does it mean that jyka affects lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22609, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 16%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 21%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 86%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 66%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 73%.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does the chance of lirg increase when jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22615, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22620, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 14%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 37%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 37%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22625, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nFor those who are hwax, the correlation between jyka and lirg is 0.17.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does it mean that jyka does not affect lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22626, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 51%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 1%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 64%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 16%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 89%.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does the chance of lirg decrease when jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 17%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 46%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 8%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 73%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 2%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 28%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22639, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 86%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 6%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 39%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 49%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 96%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 60%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22644, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22645, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 30%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 58%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 29%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 92%. The overall probability of hwax is 21%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22648, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22650, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 86%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 14%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 39%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 83%. The overall probability of hwax is 22%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22651, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22654, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 83%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 93%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 55%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 84%. The overall probability of hwax is 61%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22658, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 29%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 31%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 18%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 63%. The overall probability of hwax is 56%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22659, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 29%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 31%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 18%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 63%. The overall probability of hwax is 56%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22661, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 84%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 4%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 41%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22663, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 82%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 49%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 60%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22665, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22675, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 99%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 1%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 61%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 30%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 73%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 68%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 19%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 55%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 0%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 49%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 9%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 41%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 44%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 50%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 60%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 46%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 41%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 10%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 34%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 5%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22697, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 43%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 55%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 40%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22698, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 43%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 32%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 17%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22699, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 43%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 32%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 17%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22701, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 53%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 83%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22707, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 85%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 27%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 92%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 62%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 43%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 76%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would jyka positively affect lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22708, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 85%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 27%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 92%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 62%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 43%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 76%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would jyka negatively affect lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22711, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 56%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 71%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22714, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 97%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 54%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 62%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 82%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 95%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 46%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 46%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 74%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22724, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 48%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 24%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 36%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22732, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 80%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 30%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 9%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 36%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 12%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 35%. The overall probability of jyka is 41%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22734, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 41%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 18%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 8%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22735, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 11%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 91%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 29%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 33%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 30%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 32%. The overall probability of jyka is 7%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22736, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 29%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 33%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 30%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 32%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 11%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 91%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22740, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 7%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 28%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 2%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22741, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gyzp.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22743, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 48%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 28%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 22%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 48%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 19%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 55%. The overall probability of jyka is 69%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22744, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 48%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 28%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 22%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 48%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 19%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 55%. The overall probability of jyka is 69%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22747, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 28%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 15%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 26%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 13%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 46%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 18%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22748, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 46%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 18%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 28%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 15%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 26%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 13%. The overall probability of jyka is 52%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22749, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 52%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 22%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 24%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22751, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 75%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 36%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 33%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 70%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 51%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 64%. The overall probability of jyka is 99%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22752, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 33%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 70%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 51%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 64%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 75%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 36%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22753, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 33%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 70%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 51%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 64%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 75%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 36%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22754, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 75%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 36%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 33%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 70%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 51%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 64%. The overall probability of jyka is 99%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22756, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 99%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 61%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 55%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22757, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 99%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 1%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 54%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22759, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22763, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 76%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 9%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 36%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22766, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 17%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 48%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 41%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22769, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 55%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 4%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 93%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 99%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 86%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 74%. The overall probability of jyka is 12%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22770, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 12%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 96%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 86%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22771, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 12%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 85%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 10%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22772, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 12%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 85%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 10%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22774, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 93%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 76%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 20%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 12%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 20%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 12%. The overall probability of jyka is 24%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22775, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 93%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 76%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 20%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 12%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 20%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 12%. The overall probability of jyka is 24%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22777, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 24%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 13%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 14%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22778, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 24%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 10%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 3%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 31%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 34%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 30%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 80%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 45%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 93%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 77%. For those who are hwax, the probability of lirg is 82%. For those who are not hwax, the probability of jyka is 48%. For those who are hwax, the probability of jyka is 33%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22786, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 40%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 97%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 74%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22795, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gyzp.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22796, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 61%. For those who are hwax, the probability of lirg is 79%. For those who are not hwax, the probability of jyka is 40%. For those who are hwax, the probability of jyka is 12%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22811, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 78%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 9%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 35%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22821, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22823, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 20%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 44%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 80%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 89%. For those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of hwax is 18%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of hwax is 59%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of hwax is 93%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of hwax is 48%. The overall probability of gyzp is 34%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22828, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22832, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 6%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 6%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 11%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 15%. For those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of hwax is 46%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of hwax is 63%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of hwax is 81%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of hwax is 42%. The overall probability of gyzp is 7%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22833, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 59%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 6%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 16%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22835, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 31%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 38%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22840, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22848, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 95%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 2%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 66%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22864, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 82%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 53%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 94%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 50%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 84%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 43%. For those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of hwax is 37%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of hwax is 24%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of hwax is 74%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of hwax is 75%. The overall probability of gyzp is 70%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22873, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 22%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 29%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax and gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22877, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 38%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 57%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22882, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 63%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 49%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 4%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 60%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 2%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22888, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 33%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 67%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22891, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 16%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 28%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 11%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22892, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 16%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 28%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 11%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22897, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 69%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 66%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 60%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22898, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 69%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 21%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 41%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22908, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 35%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 35%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 17%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22912, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 66%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 11%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 18%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22913, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gyzp.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22914, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 49%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 30%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22916, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22917, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gyzp.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22919, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 20%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 12%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax and gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22921, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 52%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 70%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 58%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 66%. The overall probability of hwax is 50%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22922, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 52%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 70%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 58%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 66%. The overall probability of hwax is 50%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22924, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 13%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 55%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 66%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22926, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 13%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 48%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 9%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22927, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gyzp.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22928, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22932, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 87%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 3%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 20%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22933, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 46%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 26%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 50%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 26%. The overall probability of hwax is 4%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22935, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 34%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 50%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 27%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 26%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of gyzp is 73%. For those who are jyka, the probability of gyzp is 73%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22936, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22938, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 82%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 95%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 72%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 38%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of gyzp is 13%. For those who are jyka, the probability of gyzp is 16%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22939, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 27%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 84%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 67%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22941, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 79%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 97%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 38%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 40%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of gyzp is 71%. For those who are jyka, the probability of gyzp is 72%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22942, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 79%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 97%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 38%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 40%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of gyzp is 71%. For those who are jyka, the probability of gyzp is 72%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22945, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gyzp.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22946, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 40%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 12%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 56%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 21%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of gyzp is 29%. For those who are jyka, the probability of gyzp is 33%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22947, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 33%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 79%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 37%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 76%. The overall probability of hwax is 22%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22950, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 76%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 8%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 60%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22951, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 76%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 8%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 60%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gyzp.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22953, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22954, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 48%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 32%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 44%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 41%. The overall probability of hwax is 58%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22956, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 59%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 24%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 3%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 95%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of gyzp is 33%. For those who are jyka, the probability of gyzp is 38%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22959, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 57%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 13%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 35%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 3%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of gyzp is 25%. For those who are jyka, the probability of gyzp is 8%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22960, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 95%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 46%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 33%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22962, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 95%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 2%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 31%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22963, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 95%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 2%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 31%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22964, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22965, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 41%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 12%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 48%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 16%. The overall probability of hwax is 77%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22967, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 41%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 60%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of lirg is 12%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of lirg is 22%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of gyzp is 36%. For those who are jyka, the probability of gyzp is 11%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22970, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gyzp.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22972, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 14%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 71%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 66%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22976, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 14%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 85%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 43%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22985, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 50%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 84%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22990, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22991, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 43%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 19%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 22992, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 43%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 19%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22993, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 43%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 19%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 22994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 0%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 43%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 19%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23001, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 12%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 56%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 8%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 53%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 42%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 53%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 42%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23005, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 26%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 39%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 11%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23014, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23017, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 6%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 8%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23018, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 6%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 8%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23019, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 6%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 8%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23024, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 77%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 78%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23025, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 97%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 35%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23034, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 97%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 1%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 34%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23035, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to yupt.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23036, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 94%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 96%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23037, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 94%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 96%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23038, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 94%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 96%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23040, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 25%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 94%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 96%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23042, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 25%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 71%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 24%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23043, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 25%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 71%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 24%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23044, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 77%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 24%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23052, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 71%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 67%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23053, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 71%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 67%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23054, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 71%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 67%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23059, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to yupt.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23060, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 60%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 63%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23061, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 60%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 63%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23062, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 97%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 2%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 60%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23063, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to yupt.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23069, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nFor those who are yupt, the correlation between jyka and kwox is 0.00.\nIf we look at those who are yupt, does it mean that jyka affects kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 99%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 73%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 73%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23076, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 66%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 98%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 80%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 54%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 91%.\nIf we look at those who are yupt, does the chance of kwox increase when jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23077, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to yupt.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23078, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nFor those who are yupt, the correlation between jyka and kwox is -0.10.\nIf we look at those who are yupt, does it mean that jyka does not affect kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23079, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 32%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 37%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 16%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 38%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 8%.\nIf we look at those who are yupt, does the chance of kwox increase when jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23083, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nFor those who are yupt, the correlation between jyka and kwox is -0.04.\nIf we look at those who are yupt, does it mean that jyka affects kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23088, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 84%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 61%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 61%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23090, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to yupt.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23096, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23097, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nFor those who are yupt, the correlation between jyka and kwox is -0.01.\nIf we look at those who are yupt, does it mean that jyka affects kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 23%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 52%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 35%. The overall probability of yupt is 91%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23105, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 11%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 24%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 32%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23112, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 23%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 23%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 14%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 20%. The overall probability of yupt is 97%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 79%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 3%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 16%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23116, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 95%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 49%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 58%. The overall probability of yupt is 23%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 32%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 87%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 51%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23121, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 7%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 71%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 46%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23124, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 24%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 50%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 92%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 58%. The overall probability of yupt is 54%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23125, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 24%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 50%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 92%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 58%. The overall probability of yupt is 54%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23127, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 70%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 16%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 38%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 40%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 14%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 32%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23135, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 72%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 17%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 24%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 74%. The overall probability of yupt is 22%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23141, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 25%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 42%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 19%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 2%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 87%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 75%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23148, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 82%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 39%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 73%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 19%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 83%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 61%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 82%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 39%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 73%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 19%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 83%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 61%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through yupt, would jyka positively affect kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23150, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to yupt.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23152, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 82%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 80%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23154, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 69%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 96%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 98%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 16%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 48%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 22%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through yupt, would jyka negatively affect kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23157, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 40%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 5%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 33%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23159, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 2%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 34%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 62%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 51%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 46%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 64%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through yupt, would jyka negatively affect kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23164, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 89%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 2%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 49%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to yupt.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23176, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 73%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 7%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 32%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 94%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 91%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 5%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23179, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 81%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 27%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23185, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 35%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 20%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23186, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 37%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 30%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 9%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 21%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 41%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 94%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through yupt, would jyka negatively affect kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23189, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 24%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 26%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 5%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23190, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23191, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 70%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 92%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 51%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 8%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 50%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 5%. The overall probability of jyka is 65%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23192, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 65%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 21%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 9%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23195, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 25%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 71%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 86%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 29%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 88%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 24%. The overall probability of jyka is 53%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23196, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 25%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 71%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 86%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 29%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 88%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 24%. The overall probability of jyka is 53%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23197, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 25%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 71%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 86%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 29%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 88%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 24%. The overall probability of jyka is 53%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23199, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23200, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 61%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 49%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 98%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 77%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 59%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 23%. The overall probability of jyka is 87%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23202, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 87%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 85%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 41%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23203, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23207, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 65%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 60%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 52%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 28%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 66%. The overall probability of jyka is 37%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23208, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 65%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 60%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 52%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 28%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 66%. The overall probability of jyka is 37%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23209, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 52%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 28%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 66%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 65%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 60%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23210, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 65%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 60%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 52%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 28%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 66%. The overall probability of jyka is 37%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23214, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 62%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 61%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 60%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 85%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23216, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 88%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 8%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 65%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 49%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 50%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 71%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 84%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 73%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 82%. The overall probability of jyka is 75%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23219, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 75%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 77%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 78%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23221, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23222, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 51%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 92%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 89%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 46%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 50%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 18%. The overall probability of jyka is 88%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23223, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 89%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 46%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 50%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 18%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 51%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 92%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23224, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 89%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 46%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 50%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 18%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 51%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 92%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23225, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 51%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 92%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 89%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 46%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 50%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 18%. The overall probability of jyka is 88%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23226, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 51%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 92%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 89%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 46%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 50%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 18%. The overall probability of jyka is 88%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23227, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 88%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 8%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 18%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23229, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23234, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 71%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 68%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 57%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 17%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 41%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23235, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 27%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 70%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 51%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 27%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 70%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 51%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23240, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23245, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23250, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 25%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 55%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 72%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23251, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 25%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 41%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 18%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23255, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt, the probability of kwox is 33%. For those who are yupt, the probability of kwox is 12%. For those who are not yu'detpt, the probability of jyka is 92%. For those who are yupt, the probability of jyka is 22%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23259, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt, the probability of kwox is 55%. For those who are yupt, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are not yu'detpt, the probability of jyka is 29%. For those who are yupt, the probability of jyka is 66%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 49%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 36%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 15%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23276, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 26%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 70%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 20%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 68%. For those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 75%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 88%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 40%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 10%. The overall probability of qwiu is 66%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 26%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 70%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 20%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 68%. For those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 75%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 88%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 40%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 10%. The overall probability of qwiu is 66%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through yupt, would jyka positively affect kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23283, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 19%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 24%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 19%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 46%. For those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 89%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 37%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 83%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 95%. The overall probability of qwiu is 42%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23285, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 86%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 35%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 45%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23288, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 28%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 90%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23291, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 81%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 51%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23292, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 81%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 51%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23293, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 95%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 48%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 89%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 35%. For those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 77%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 25%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 53%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 71%. The overall probability of qwiu is 96%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23295, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 95%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 48%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 89%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 35%. For those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 77%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 25%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 53%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 71%. The overall probability of qwiu is 96%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through yupt, would jyka negatively affect kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23303, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 51%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 40%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 30%. For those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 16%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 47%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 61%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 44%. The overall probability of qwiu is 47%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through yupt, would jyka negatively affect kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23306, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 95%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 3%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 33%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23317, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 81%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 9%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 48%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 51%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 72%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23320, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 41%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 80%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 92%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 59%. For those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 1%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 77%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 1%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 83%. The overall probability of qwiu is 81%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through yupt, would jyka positively affect kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23321, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 74%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 51%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 72%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23325, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 54%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 92%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 66%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 30%. For those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 31%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 36%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 82%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 45%. The overall probability of qwiu is 1%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23326, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 54%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 92%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 66%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 30%. For those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 31%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 36%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 82%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 45%. The overall probability of qwiu is 1%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23329, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 65%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 66%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 36%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23330, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 65%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 23%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 24%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 31%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 33%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt and qwiu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23335, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 32%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 84%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt and qwiu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23336, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 40%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 19%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 34%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23338, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 70%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 69%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23342, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23343, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23344, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 57%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 61%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 96%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 57%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 61%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 96%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 2%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 59%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23352, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 56%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 52%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23353, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 56%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 52%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23355, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 51%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 47%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23357, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 51%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 47%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt and qwiu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23360, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23364, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 10%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 42%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 4%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23365, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 78%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 57%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23372, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 78%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 57%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23373, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 78%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 57%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt and qwiu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23382, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 63%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 41%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 95%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of qwiu is 63%. For those who are jyka, the probability of qwiu is 34%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23384, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 33%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 45%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 20%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23385, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 42%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 22%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 42%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 27%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 9%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23388, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 77%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 48%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 68%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 54%. The overall probability of yupt is 93%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23389, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 39%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 42%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 21%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23390, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 39%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 42%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 21%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23392, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 45%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 56%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 85%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of qwiu is 43%. For those who are jyka, the probability of qwiu is 53%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23393, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 51%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 49%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 80%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23394, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 51%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 24%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 41%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23395, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23396, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23397, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 34%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 13%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 24%. The overall probability of yupt is 28%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23399, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 70%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 45%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 73%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 45%. The overall probability of yupt is 82%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23400, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 54%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 87%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 45%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 45%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of qwiu is 54%. For those who are jyka, the probability of qwiu is 55%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23402, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 65%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 25%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 30%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23403, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23405, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 82%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 31%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 70%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23406, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 82%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 5%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 58%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 82%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 5%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 58%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23408, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23409, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23410, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 40%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 13%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 32%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 28%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of qwiu is 60%. For those who are jyka, the probability of qwiu is 65%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23411, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 49%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 33%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 60%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 34%. The overall probability of yupt is 23%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23412, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 36%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 35%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 32%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of qwiu is 60%. For those who are jyka, the probability of qwiu is 63%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23413, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 52%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 52%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 33%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23420, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23421, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 13%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 25%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23422, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 53%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 13%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 25%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 53%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 6%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 13%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23424, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23428, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 54%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 43%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 8%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23433, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 60%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 69%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23439, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 16%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 91%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 71%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 5%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 65%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23447, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 56%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 21%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23452, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 91%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 72%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 64%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23454, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 58%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 39%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23456, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 58%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 39%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23459, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 20%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 55%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 20%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 55%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23465, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23466, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 72%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 65%.\nDoes yupt positively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23470, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 10%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 9%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23477, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 92%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 37%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 79%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23479, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 28%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 39%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23480, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 28%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 39%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23482, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 28%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 39%.\nDoes yupt positively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23483, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 78%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 28%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 39%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23490, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 69%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 65%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23491, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 69%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 65%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23493, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 65%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 24%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 42%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23498, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 79%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 72%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 80%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23502, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 77%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 77%.\nDoes yupt positively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23509, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nFor those who are zupj, the correlation between yupt and muvq is 0.34.\nIf we look at those who are zupj, does it mean that yupt does not affect muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23514, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to zupj. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23516, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 48%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 83%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 98%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 90%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 91%.\nIf we look at those who are zupj, does the chance of muvq decrease when yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23520, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 85%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 95%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 95%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23521, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 85%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 95%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 95%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nFor those who are zupj, the correlation between yupt and muvq is -0.07.\nIf we look at those who are zupj, does it mean that yupt affects muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 74%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 44%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 14%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 14%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 40%.\nIf we look at those who are zupj, does the chance of muvq increase when yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23535, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 2%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 93%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 45%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 80%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 25%.\nIf we look at those who are zupj, does the chance of muvq increase when yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23537, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nFor those who are zupj, the correlation between yupt and muvq is 0.07.\nIf we look at those who are zupj, does it mean that yupt affects muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23541, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 20%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 43%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 11%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23549, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 87%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 2%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 51%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23550, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23552, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 66%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 57%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 71%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23558, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 58%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 5%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 62%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 74%. The overall probability of zupj is 41%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23564, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 66%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 36%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 0%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 85%. The overall probability of zupj is 78%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23565, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 66%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 36%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 0%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 85%. The overall probability of zupj is 78%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23570, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 3%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 91%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 72%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23571, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 3%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 88%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 2%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23572, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 9%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 50%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 59%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 37%. The overall probability of zupj is 40%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23573, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 26%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 14%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 29%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 46%. The overall probability of zupj is 40%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23574, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 26%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 14%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 29%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 46%. The overall probability of zupj is 40%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23575, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23576, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 40%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 32%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 73%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 57%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 87%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 89%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23578, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 1%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 33%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 59%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23580, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 1%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 32%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 1%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23581, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to zupj. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23586, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 31%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 18%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 67%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 75%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 4%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 81%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through zupj, would yupt negatively affect muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 6%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 88%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 49%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 4%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 56%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 53%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through zupj, would yupt negatively affect muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23601, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 73%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 18%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23606, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 72%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 65%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23609, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to zupj. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23616, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 79%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 91%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 41%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 28%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 20%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 13%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through zupj, would yupt negatively affect muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 92%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 0%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 72%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23626, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 42%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 65%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 36%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 86%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 39%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 85%. The overall probability of yupt is 38%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23627, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to xyfo.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 68%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 11%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 30%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 37%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 43%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 35%. The overall probability of yupt is 28%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23629, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 30%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 37%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 43%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 35%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 68%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 11%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23631, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 28%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 25%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 12%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23633, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 43%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 49%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 56%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 56%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 3%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 92%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23635, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 3%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 92%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 43%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 49%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 56%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 56%. The overall probability of yupt is 37%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 37%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 27%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 21%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23638, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 22%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 33%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 35%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23639, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 76%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 18%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 22%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 62%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 23%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 51%. The overall probability of yupt is 6%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 6%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 53%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 28%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 6%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 50%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 2%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23644, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 48%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 48%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 39%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23648, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 86%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 40%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 15%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 28%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 8%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 21%. The overall probability of yupt is 19%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23649, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 19%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 26%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 13%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23650, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to xyfo.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23651, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23652, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 44%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 41%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 31%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 54%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 14%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 40%. The overall probability of yupt is 48%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23654, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 31%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 54%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 14%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 40%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 44%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 41%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23656, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 48%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 41%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 24%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23658, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23659, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 1%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 66%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 63%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 13%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 59%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 10%. The overall probability of yupt is 81%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23661, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 1%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 66%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 63%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 13%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 59%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 10%. The overall probability of yupt is 81%.\nDoes yupt positively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23663, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 81%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 63%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 27%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23664, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 81%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 12%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 22%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23666, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23667, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 83%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 70%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 78%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 81%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 77%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 75%. The overall probability of yupt is 32%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23668, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 78%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 81%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 77%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 75%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 83%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 70%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23669, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 78%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 81%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 77%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 75%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 83%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 70%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23672, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23674, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 56%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 37%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 28%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 36%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 4%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 4%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23680, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 56%. For those who are zupj, the probability of muvq is 58%. For those who are not zupj, the probability of yupt is 44%. For those who are zupj, the probability of yupt is 34%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23683, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 67%. For those who are zupj, the probability of muvq is 68%. For those who are not zupj, the probability of yupt is 64%. For those who are zupj, the probability of yupt is 59%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 61%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 78%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 62%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23690, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23697, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 71%. For those who are zupj, the probability of muvq is 72%. For those who are not zupj, the probability of yupt is 77%. For those who are zupj, the probability of yupt is 47%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 72%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 59%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 66%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23731, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 79%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 63%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 52%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 60%. For those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of zupj is 95%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of zupj is 71%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of zupj is 94%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of zupj is 58%. The overall probability of xyfo is 43%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through zupj, would yupt positively affect muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23735, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to zupj. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 17%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 19%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23744, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 28%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 64%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23749, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23760, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to zupj. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23761, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23766, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 90%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 7%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 50%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23768, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 58%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 56%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23770, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 58%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 56%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj and xyfo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23774, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23786, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 52%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 46%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23787, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 52%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 46%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj and xyfo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23788, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 74%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 52%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 46%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23790, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23791, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to xyfo.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23796, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 23%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 26%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23799, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to xyfo.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23800, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 44%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 48%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23808, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 56%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 58%.\nDoes yupt positively affect muvq through zupj and xyfo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23809, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 56%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 58%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj and xyfo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23812, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to xyfo.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23813, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 84%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 12%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 17%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 72%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of xyfo is 41%. For those who are yupt, the probability of xyfo is 46%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23815, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 79%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 11%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 33%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23816, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 57%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 31%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 14%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 67%. The overall probability of zupj is 94%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23817, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 7%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 77%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 73%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 14%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of xyfo is 14%. For those who are yupt, the probability of xyfo is 11%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23818, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 19%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 17%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 66%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23821, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 52%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 34%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 29%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23824, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 60%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 41%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 69%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 70%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of xyfo is 15%. For those who are yupt, the probability of xyfo is 15%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23825, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to xyfo.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23826, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 6%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 92%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 73%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 93%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of xyfo is 81%. For those who are yupt, the probability of xyfo is 90%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23828, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 85%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 76%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 91%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23829, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 94%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 58%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 92%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 55%. The overall probability of zupj is 95%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23830, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 94%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 58%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 92%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 55%. The overall probability of zupj is 95%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23831, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 99%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 67%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 67%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 11%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of xyfo is 22%. For those who are yupt, the probability of xyfo is 21%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23832, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 8%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 85%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 4%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23833, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 14%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 54%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 11%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 56%. The overall probability of zupj is 71%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23836, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 77%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 13%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 56%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23838, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 28%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 73%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 4%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 92%. The overall probability of zupj is 86%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23839, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 83%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 23%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 92%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23840, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 83%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 4%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 77%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23842, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23844, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 45%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 81%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23853, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 46%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 89%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23854, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 20%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 46%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 89%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23857, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 43%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 25%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23858, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 19%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 43%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 25%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23860, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 89%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 22%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23861, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 89%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 22%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23862, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 89%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 22%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23864, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 89%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 10%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23870, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 51%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 40%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 34%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23875, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 71%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 93%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 9%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23876, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23882, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 34%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 74%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 75%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23883, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 35%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 42%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 1%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 34%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 1%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23891, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 65%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 90%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23892, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 65%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 90%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23898, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23901, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 70%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 73%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to wibl. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23908, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 31%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 31%.\nDoes zuph positively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23909, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 63%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 31%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 31%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23910, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 63%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 31%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 31%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23917, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 42%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 26%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 18%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23921, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 97%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 97%.\nDoes zuph positively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23926, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 96%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 24%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 24%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23927, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nFor those who are wibl, the correlation between zuph and uvzi is -0.03.\nIf we look at those who are wibl, does it mean that zuph does not affect uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23932, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nFor those who are wibl, the correlation between zuph and uvzi is -0.17.\nIf we look at those who are wibl, does it mean that zuph does not affect uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23933, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 46%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 64%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 61%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 70%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 42%.\nIf we look at those who are wibl, does the chance of uvzi decrease when zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23935, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 90%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 29%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 29%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23936, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nFor those who are wibl, the correlation between zuph and uvzi is -0.12.\nIf we look at those who are wibl, does it mean that zuph affects uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23946, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 26%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 53%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 65%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 10%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 90%.\nIf we look at those who are wibl, does the chance of uvzi increase when zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23948, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 5%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 83%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 83%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23962, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 71%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 87%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 45%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 42%. The overall probability of wibl is 46%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23964, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 46%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 31%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 33%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to wibl. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23973, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 16%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 52%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 51%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 10%. The overall probability of wibl is 95%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23976, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 34%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 63%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 70%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 36%. The overall probability of wibl is 85%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 28%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 41%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 85%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 13%. The overall probability of wibl is 37%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 70%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 78%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 37%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23986, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 31%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 49%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 21%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23987, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23990, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to wibl. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 23%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 58%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 23996, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 52%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 23%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 58%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23998, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 37%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 90%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 23999, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 45%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 10%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 90%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 80%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 22%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 6%.\nDoes zuph positively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 34%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 37%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 90%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to wibl. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 19%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 39%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 18%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24019, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24020, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 74%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 59%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24030, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 57%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 26%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24034, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 83%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 10%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 21%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24038, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 72%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 17%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 32%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24042, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 19%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 71%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24048, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 53%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 48%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 62%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 56%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 28%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 62%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24051, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 33%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 34%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 19%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24053, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24055, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 41%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 65%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 48%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24056, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 41%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 38%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 20%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24058, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24059, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 22%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 63%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 14%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24060, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 22%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 63%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 14%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24061, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vubr.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24064, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 32%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 61%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 29%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24065, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vubr.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24068, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 55%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 54%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 71%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24070, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 83%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 63%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 78%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 87%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 66%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 89%. The overall probability of zuph is 44%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 78%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 87%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 66%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 89%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 83%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 63%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24074, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 44%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 48%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 35%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24079, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 69%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 36%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 36%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24080, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 69%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 11%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 24%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24081, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 69%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 11%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 24%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24082, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24086, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 68%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 4%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 68%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 4%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 94%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 7%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24087, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 45%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 7%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 63%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24088, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 45%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 4%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 28%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24089, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 68%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 82%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 11%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 48%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 11%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 44%. The overall probability of zuph is 39%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24091, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 68%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 82%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 11%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 48%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 11%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 44%. The overall probability of zuph is 39%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 57%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 48%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 73%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24101, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24102, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 45%. For those who are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 31%. For those who are not wibl, the probability of zuph is 50%. For those who are wibl, the probability of zuph is 75%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24110, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 42%. For those who are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 43%. For those who are not wibl, the probability of zuph is 15%. For those who are wibl, the probability of zuph is 60%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 63%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 30%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 7%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24120, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 62%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 56%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 61%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 43%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 36%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 20%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24130, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 51%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 17%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 17%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 52%. For those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of wibl is 87%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of wibl is 94%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of wibl is 17%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of wibl is 1%. The overall probability of vubr is 6%.\nDoes zuph positively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24133, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 19%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 22%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 22%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24134, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 19%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 22%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 22%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24136, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24142, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 15%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 47%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 11%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24163, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 71%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 45%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 32%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24164, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 71%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 12%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 22%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24169, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 94%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 27%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 46%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 92%. For those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of wibl is 44%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of wibl is 79%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of wibl is 46%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of wibl is 99%. The overall probability of vubr is 57%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24170, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 94%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 27%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 46%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 92%. For those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of wibl is 44%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of wibl is 79%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of wibl is 46%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of wibl is 99%. The overall probability of vubr is 57%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wibl, would zuph positively affect uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24171, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24177, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 28%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 82%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24179, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 81%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 28%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 82%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24184, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 8%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 28%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24185, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 47%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 4%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 13%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24188, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 78%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 70%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24189, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 78%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 70%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24193, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 18%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 78%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 70%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24194, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 18%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 63%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 13%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24196, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 68%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 61%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24198, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 68%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 61%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect uvzi through wibl and vubr?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24199, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 66%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 68%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 61%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24201, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 34%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 77%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24203, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 34%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 77%.\nDoes zuph positively affect uvzi through wibl and vubr?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24205, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 32%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 69%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24207, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 84%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 32%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 69%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24209, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 85%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 68%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24210, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 85%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 68%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24212, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 78%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 85%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 68%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24214, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 69%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 77%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24216, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 7%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 64%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 5%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24217, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 57%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 33%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24219, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 57%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 33%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24220, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 57%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 33%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24221, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 57%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 33%.\nDoes zuph positively affect uvzi through wibl and vubr?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24222, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 57%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 33%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect uvzi through wibl and vubr?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24225, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 9%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 52%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 3%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24227, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vubr.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24231, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 87%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 9%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 58%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24237, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 43%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 20%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 10%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24238, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 3%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 82%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 64%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24239, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vubr.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24240, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 26%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 62%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 24%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 24%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of vubr is 15%. For those who are zuph, the probability of vubr is 13%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 26%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 62%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 24%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 24%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of vubr is 15%. For those who are zuph, the probability of vubr is 13%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24242, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 41%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 19%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 10%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24243, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24244, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 7%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 70%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 35%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 94%. The overall probability of wibl is 46%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24246, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 87%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 9%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 83%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24250, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 77%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 63%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 54%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 76%. The overall probability of wibl is 23%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24252, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 68%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 76%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 67%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24254, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vubr.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24256, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 53%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 5%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 5%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 99%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of vubr is 51%. For those who are zuph, the probability of vubr is 43%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24257, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 40%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 28%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 45%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24258, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 40%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 17%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 18%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24260, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 58%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 61%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 58%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 64%. The overall probability of wibl is 75%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24261, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 67%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 19%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 43%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24263, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vubr.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24265, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 25%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 60%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 41%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 64%. The overall probability of wibl is 73%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24266, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 9%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 88%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 56%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 77%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of vubr is 34%. For those who are zuph, the probability of vubr is 38%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24267, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 3%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 36%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 64%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24268, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 3%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 36%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 64%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24269, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24270, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 49%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 51%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 48%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 30%. The overall probability of wibl is 17%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24271, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 49%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 51%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 48%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 30%. The overall probability of wibl is 17%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24272, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 49%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 48%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 65%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 30%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of vubr is 48%. For those who are zuph, the probability of vubr is 52%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24273, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 49%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 48%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 65%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 30%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of vubr is 48%. For those who are zuph, the probability of vubr is 52%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24274, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 83%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 49%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 47%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24279, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to wibl. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24282, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 65%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 30%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 19%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24291, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24300, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 53%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 3%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 14%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24302, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 19%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 28%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 10%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24303, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24304, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 70%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 50%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 54%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24314, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 81%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 26%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 21%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 81%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 5%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 17%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24316, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24317, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 97%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 96%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24320, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 55%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 59%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24321, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 55%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 59%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24323, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 55%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 59%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24324, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 44%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 31%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 26%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24329, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 71%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 72%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24330, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 71%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 72%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 71%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 72%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24333, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 95%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 71%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 72%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24338, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 62%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 79%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24339, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 62%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 79%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24340, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 72%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 62%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 79%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24343, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 28%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 74%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24346, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 89%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 76%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 64%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 89%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 76%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 79%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 33%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24356, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 86%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 100%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 96%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 77%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 99%.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does the chance of rukz increase when pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24361, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24367, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 77%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 24%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 24%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24368, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 88%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 67%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 67%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24372, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 88%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 79%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 65%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 99%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 46%.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does the chance of rukz increase when pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24374, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 11%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 93%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 99%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 92%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 100%.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does the chance of rukz decrease when pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24382, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 70%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 12%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 12%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24384, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nFor those who are hwax, the correlation between pexu and rukz is -0.00.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does it mean that pexu affects rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 70%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 26%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 10%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 18%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 10%.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does the chance of rukz decrease when pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24387, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 33%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 90%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 86%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 85%. The overall probability of hwax is 54%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24396, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24397, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 80%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 92%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 12%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 50%. The overall probability of hwax is 94%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24401, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 97%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 95%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 58%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 56%. The overall probability of hwax is 1%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24402, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 97%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 95%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 58%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 56%. The overall probability of hwax is 1%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24403, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 27%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 70%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 26%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24419, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 39%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 76%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 55%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24420, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 39%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 76%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 55%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24422, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 64%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 35%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 87%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 24%. The overall probability of hwax is 0%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24439, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 32%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 82%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 89%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 4%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 97%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 51%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24440, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 52%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 38%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 24%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 85%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 43%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24446, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 17%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 80%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 88%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 2%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 70%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24458, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 12%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 14%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 93%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 38%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 70%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 5%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would pexu positively affect rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 92%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 57%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24465, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 12%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 92%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 57%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24467, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 56%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 64%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24468, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 54%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 26%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 34%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24473, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 55%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 22%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 73%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24476, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24480, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 45%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 56%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 61%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 63%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 12%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 15%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would pexu negatively affect rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24488, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 15%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 59%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 13%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 60%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 28%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 36%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24489, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 28%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 36%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 15%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 59%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 13%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 60%. The overall probability of pexu is 72%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24490, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 72%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 27%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 30%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24491, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 72%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 8%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 22%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24492, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 8%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 61%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 15%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 22%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 8%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 23%. The overall probability of pexu is 66%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24494, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 15%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 22%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 8%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 23%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 8%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 61%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24496, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 66%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 16%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 17%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24497, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24498, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24500, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 70%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 35%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 72%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 35%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 17%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 67%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24501, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 70%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 35%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 72%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 35%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 17%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 67%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24503, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 19%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 88%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 24%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 65%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 56%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 4%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24505, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 56%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 4%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 19%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 88%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 24%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 65%. The overall probability of pexu is 81%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24506, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 81%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 58%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 25%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24507, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 81%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 11%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 20%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 81%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 11%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 20%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24509, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 34%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 81%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 71%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 46%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 73%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 43%. The overall probability of pexu is 85%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24511, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 85%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 62%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 49%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24513, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 96%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 1%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 48%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 47%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 46%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 46%. The overall probability of pexu is 44%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24514, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 96%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 1%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 48%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 47%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 46%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 46%. The overall probability of pexu is 44%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24516, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 44%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 27%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 20%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24517, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24518, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24519, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 98%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 62%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 93%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 62%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 92%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 62%. The overall probability of pexu is 43%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24521, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 43%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 62%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 73%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24523, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 32%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 47%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 8%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 83%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 8%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 82%. The overall probability of pexu is 82%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 32%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 47%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 8%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 83%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 8%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 82%. The overall probability of pexu is 82%.\nDoes pexu positively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24525, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24527, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 80%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 86%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 65%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 74%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 57%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 57%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24528, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 57%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 57%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 80%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 86%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 65%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 74%. The overall probability of pexu is 35%.\nDoes pexu positively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24529, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 57%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 57%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 80%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 86%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 65%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 74%. The overall probability of pexu is 35%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 35%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 54%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 25%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24531, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24532, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24533, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 6%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 64%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 58%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 77%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 89%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 88%. The overall probability of pexu is 42%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24534, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 42%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 59%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 89%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24535, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 42%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 59%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 89%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24537, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24538, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24540, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 27%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 3%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 88%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24545, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 65%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 40%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 93%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24547, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24549, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 50%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 88%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 66%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 51%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 2%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 39%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24564, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24566, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 79%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 37%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 45%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24583, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 78%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 78%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 94%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 82%. For those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 72%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 44%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 89%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 71%. The overall probability of kraz is 4%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would pexu positively affect rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 81%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 15%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 67%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24589, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 4%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 56%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 31%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24592, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 29%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 30%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24602, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 53%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 78%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24604, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 45%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 98%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 86%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 62%. For those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 58%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 2%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 62%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 19%. The overall probability of kraz is 84%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24606, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24609, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 16%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 18%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 28%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 60%. For those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 10%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 30%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 0%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 30%. The overall probability of kraz is 85%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would pexu positively affect rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 92%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 15%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 35%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24612, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 92%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 1%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 33%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24623, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 48%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 58%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 37%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 48%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 58%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 36%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 56%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24630, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 36%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 56%.\nDoes pexu positively affect rukz through hwax and kraz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24633, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 85%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 74%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24634, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 85%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 74%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 95%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 85%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 74%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24637, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 95%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 85%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 74%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24644, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 5%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 35%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 2%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24647, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 4%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 23%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 50%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24648, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 77%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 65%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24654, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 31%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 57%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24656, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 2%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 31%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 57%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24662, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 41%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 10%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 38%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 8%. The overall probability of hwax is 87%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24663, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 41%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 10%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 38%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 8%. The overall probability of hwax is 87%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24668, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 88%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 56%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 67%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24670, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 22%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 52%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 40%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 70%. The overall probability of hwax is 6%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24671, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 9%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 55%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 40%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 84%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of kraz is 40%. For those who are pexu, the probability of kraz is 28%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24672, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 84%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 4%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 44%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24673, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24674, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24676, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 14%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 48%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 78%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24680, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 54%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 27%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 11%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 96%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of kraz is 86%. For those who are pexu, the probability of kraz is 87%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24681, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 65%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 13%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 76%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 22%. The overall probability of hwax is 43%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24682, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 76%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 64%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 22%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 12%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of kraz is 85%. For those who are pexu, the probability of kraz is 5%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24683, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 76%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 64%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 22%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 12%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of kraz is 85%. For those who are pexu, the probability of kraz is 5%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 41%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 66%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 22%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24685, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 41%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 39%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 9%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24686, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 96%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 88%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 41%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 61%. The overall probability of hwax is 96%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24689, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 96%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 88%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 41%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 61%. The overall probability of hwax is 96%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24690, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 42%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 25%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 26%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24691, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 42%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 25%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 26%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24692, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 19%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 87%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 25%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 70%. The overall probability of hwax is 3%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24694, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 58%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 8%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 50%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 15%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 16%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 18%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 16%. The overall probability of hwax is 71%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24697, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 13%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 24%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 16%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 15%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of kraz is 33%. For those who are pexu, the probability of kraz is 42%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24698, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 13%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 24%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 16%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 15%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of kraz is 33%. For those who are pexu, the probability of kraz is 42%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24699, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 85%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 2%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 13%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24703, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24713, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 79%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 6%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 9%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 92%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 53%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 47%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24721, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24725, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 96%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 63%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24729, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 81%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 51%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 47%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 74%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 64%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24738, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 47%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 40%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 30%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24740, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 0%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 44%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 56%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24741, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 0%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 44%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 0%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24744, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 86%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 9%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 77%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24749, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 18%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 20%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24752, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 26%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 34%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 29%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24754, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 26%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 26%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 7%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24755, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 70%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 72%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24756, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 70%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 72%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24759, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 6%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 11%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24760, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 6%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 11%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24761, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 15%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 6%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 11%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24764, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 42%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 57%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24767, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 27%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 31%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 16%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24769, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24771, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 48%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 50%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24772, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 48%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 50%.\nDoes zuph positively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24778, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 4%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 46%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 48%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to jyka. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24782, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 85%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 25%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 24%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24783, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 85%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 4%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 21%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24785, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 38%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 32%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24786, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 38%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 32%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24787, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 15%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 38%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 32%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24792, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 93%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 67%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 67%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24793, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24795, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 78%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 16%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 84%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 69%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 19%.\nIf we look at those who are jyka, does the chance of glimx decrease when zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24808, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to jyka. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24813, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 45%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 9%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 9%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24816, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 45%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 4%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 18%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 11%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 2%.\nIf we look at those who are jyka, does the chance of glimx increase when zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24817, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 70%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 27%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 27%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24819, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nFor those who are jyka, the correlation between zuph and glimx is -0.21.\nIf we look at those who are jyka, does it mean that zuph does not affect glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24830, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24832, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 36%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 12%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 48%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24834, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 36%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 7%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 17%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24835, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24837, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 66%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 7%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 67%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24839, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24842, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24846, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 38%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 11%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 35%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24852, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 51%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 87%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 16%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24855, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 9%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 18%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 97%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 9%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 38%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 6%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24877, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 100%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 51%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 28%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 60%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 93%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 40%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24894, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 13%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 81%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 68%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 1%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 64%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 80%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through jyka, would zuph positively affect glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24900, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 83%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 32%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 90%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24901, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 83%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 5%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 75%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24903, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 55%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 72%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24913, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 4%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 65%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 46%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24917, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 74%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 63%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 33%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24918, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 47%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 60%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 76%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 43%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 72%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 43%. The overall probability of zuph is 56%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24919, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 76%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 43%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 72%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 43%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 47%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 60%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24923, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 87%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 1%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 39%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24924, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 17%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 61%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 16%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 57%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 7%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 85%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24925, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 7%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 85%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 17%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 61%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 16%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 57%. The overall probability of zuph is 72%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24926, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 72%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 20%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 51%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24928, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24931, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 73%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 13%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 21%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 26%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 91%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 14%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 88%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 56%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 4%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24936, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 56%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 4%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 26%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 91%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 14%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 88%. The overall probability of zuph is 8%.\nDoes zuph positively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24937, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 8%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 63%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 17%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24938, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 8%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 63%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 17%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24940, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 8%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 58%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 1%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24941, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24943, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 7%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 86%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 2%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 22%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 2%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 21%. The overall probability of zuph is 62%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24946, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 62%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 4%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 19%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24947, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 99%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 25%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 80%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 84%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 81%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 84%. The overall probability of zuph is 40%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24949, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 80%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 84%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 81%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 84%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 99%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 25%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24951, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 40%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 51%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 32%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 40%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 51%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 32%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24953, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24955, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 84%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 52%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 34%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 33%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 41%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 29%. The overall probability of zuph is 48%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24956, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 84%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 52%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 34%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 33%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 41%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 29%. The overall probability of zuph is 48%.\nDoes zuph positively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24959, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to zory. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24960, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 35%. For those who are jyka, the probability of glimx is 35%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of zuph is 66%. For those who are jyka, the probability of zuph is 73%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24964, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 51%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 68%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 55%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24967, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 74%. For those who are jyka, the probability of glimx is 47%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of zuph is 11%. For those who are jyka, the probability of zuph is 78%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24970, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 55%. For those who are jyka, the probability of glimx is 49%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of zuph is 29%. For those who are jyka, the probability of zuph is 11%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24972, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 37%. For those who are jyka, the probability of glimx is 34%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of zuph is 27%. For those who are jyka, the probability of zuph is 59%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 43%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 27%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 17%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 24985, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24995, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 79%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 40%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 24996, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 83%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 79%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 55%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 32%. For those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 60%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 87%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 66%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 55%. The overall probability of zory is 41%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25001, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 24%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 56%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 2%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 24%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 56%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25018, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 75%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 24%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25019, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 44%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 93%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 15%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 25%. For those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 77%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 13%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 83%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 76%. The overall probability of zory is 25%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through jyka, would zuph negatively affect glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25023, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 54%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 90%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 88%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 97%. For those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 57%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 63%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 67%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 65%. The overall probability of zory is 14%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through jyka, would zuph negatively affect glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25041, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 40%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 49%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 42%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 52%. For those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 72%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 28%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 32%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 6%. The overall probability of zory is 50%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through jyka, would zuph positively affect glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25044, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 75%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 11%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 33%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25048, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 43%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 64%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25050, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 0%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 43%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 64%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25053, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 56%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 62%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25055, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 56%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 62%.\nDoes zuph positively affect glimx through jyka and zory?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25056, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 9%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 56%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 62%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25058, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 23%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 38%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 51%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25060, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 29%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 64%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25065, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25069, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 87%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 84%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 63%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25070, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 38%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 48%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25074, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 38%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 48%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect glimx through jyka and zory?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25078, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 0%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 30%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 0%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25079, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to zory. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25080, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25083, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 77%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 57%.\nDoes zuph positively affect glimx through jyka and zory?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25085, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 72%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 77%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 57%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25087, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 78%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 66%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 54%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25088, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 78%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 66%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 54%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25091, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 68%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 44%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 75%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 67%. The overall probability of jyka is 29%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25092, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 75%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 18%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 35%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25093, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 75%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 18%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 35%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25094, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to zory. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25095, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 43%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 4%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 43%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 4%. The overall probability of jyka is 27%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25096, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 40%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 44%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 6%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 4%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 63%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 64%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25098, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 28%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 20%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 25%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 3%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 26%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 41%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25101, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 28%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 20%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 25%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 3%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 26%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 41%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25103, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 16%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 22%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 2%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25106, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 86%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 37%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 89%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 43%. The overall probability of jyka is 30%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25107, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 86%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 37%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 89%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 43%. The overall probability of jyka is 30%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25108, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 76%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 90%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 10%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 49%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 74%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 75%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25111, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 57%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 65%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 47%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 53%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 25%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 54%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 38%. The overall probability of jyka is 16%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25114, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 52%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 55%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 0%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 64%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 42%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 42%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25118, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 28%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 26%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 35%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 37%. The overall probability of jyka is 23%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25119, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 9%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 70%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 45%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 81%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 23%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 30%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25120, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 9%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 70%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 45%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 81%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 23%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 30%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25121, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 22%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 23%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 56%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25122, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 22%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 18%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 12%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25123, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25124, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 74%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 2%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 45%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 6%. The overall probability of jyka is 99%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25125, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 13%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 80%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 9%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 2%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 49%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 48%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25126, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 53%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 22%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 3%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25133, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 88%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 84%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 70%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25134, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 88%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 84%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 70%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25135, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25141, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 22%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 10%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25146, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 83%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 62%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25151, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to jyka. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25154, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 35%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 61%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25160, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 35%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 60%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25167, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 99%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 16%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25170, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 86%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 86%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25174, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to zuph. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25175, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 63%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 53%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25178, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 10%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 56%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 5%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25179, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to zuph. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25182, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 48%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 67%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25183, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 48%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 67%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25185, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 48%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 48%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 67%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25190, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 37%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 23%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25199, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 52%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 50%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25201, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 62%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 52%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 50%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25202, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 62%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 20%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 31%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25203, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to zuph. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25206, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 35%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 66%.\nDoes rixq positively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25207, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 16%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 13%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25212, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 51%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 16%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 13%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25214, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 21%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 23%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25215, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 21%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 23%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 80%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 2%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 2%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25222, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nFor those who are zuph, the correlation between rixq and xevu is -0.01.\nIf we look at those who are zuph, does it mean that rixq affects xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25226, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nFor those who are zuph, the correlation between rixq and xevu is 0.53.\nIf we look at those who are zuph, does it mean that rixq affects xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25230, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nFor those who are zuph, the correlation between rixq and xevu is -0.07.\nIf we look at those who are zuph, does it mean that rixq does not affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nFor those who are zuph, the correlation between rixq and xevu is 0.02.\nIf we look at those who are zuph, does it mean that rixq does not affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25245, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 54%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 90%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 57%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 64%.\nIf we look at those who are zuph, does the chance of xevu decrease when rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25247, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zuph.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25248, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Xevu has a direct effect on zuph.\nFor those who are zuph, the correlation between rixq and xevu is -0.16.\nIf we look at those who are zuph, does it mean that rixq does not affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25254, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 80%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 94%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 77%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 36%. The overall probability of zuph is 80%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25260, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to zuph. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25261, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 96%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 16%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 59%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 51%. The overall probability of zuph is 19%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25262, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 74%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 70%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 17%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 31%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 58%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 69%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25272, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 91%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 29%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 34%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 43%. The overall probability of zuph is 43%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zuph.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 49%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 67%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 26%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25288, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 11%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 65%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 77%. The overall probability of zuph is 87%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25290, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 23%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 63%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 48%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25303, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 94%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 17%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 78%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25308, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 69%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 67%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25309, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 69%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 10%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 46%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25311, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 61%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 14%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25324, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 96%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 47%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25327, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 24%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 96%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 47%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zuph.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25334, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 61%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 87%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 17%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 8%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 1%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 58%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 28%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 93%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through zuph, would rixq negatively affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25350, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 90%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 94%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 39%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 25%. The overall probability of rixq is 22%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25351, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 90%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 94%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 39%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 25%. The overall probability of rixq is 22%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25352, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 39%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 25%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 90%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 94%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25353, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 39%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 25%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 90%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 94%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25356, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 77%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 57%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 73%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 58%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 29%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 59%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25357, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 29%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 59%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 77%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 57%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 73%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 58%. The overall probability of rixq is 64%.\nDoes rixq positively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 29%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 59%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 77%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 57%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 73%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 58%. The overall probability of rixq is 64%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25359, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 64%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 71%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 64%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25360, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 64%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 25%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 41%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25362, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 27%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 23%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 56%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 80%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 81%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 70%. The overall probability of rixq is 73%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 56%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 80%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 81%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 70%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 27%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 23%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25367, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 39%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 23%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 77%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 57%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 78%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 54%. The overall probability of rixq is 36%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25368, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 36%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 44%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 26%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25369, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 8%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 59%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 66%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25376, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25377, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 11%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 64%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 52%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 53%. The overall probability of rixq is 85%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25378, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 11%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 64%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 52%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 53%. The overall probability of rixq is 85%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 28%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 29%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 12%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 76%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 55%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25382, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 76%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 55%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 28%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 29%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 12%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 46%. The overall probability of rixq is 43%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25383, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 43%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 29%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 30%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25384, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 43%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 16%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 13%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25387, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of zuph is 17%. For those who are rixq, the probability of zuph is 57%. For those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 12%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 93%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 57%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 82%. The overall probability of rixq is 81%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25391, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 63%. For those who are zuph, the probability of xevu is 63%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of rixq is 12%. For those who are zuph, the probability of rixq is 26%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25401, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 32%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 16%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 21%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25402, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25411, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 32%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 66%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 55%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25417, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 81%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 68%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25420, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 3%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 81%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 68%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25421, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 3%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 78%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 2%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25425, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 47%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 31%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25432, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 77%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 55%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 56%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25436, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 96%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 14%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 7%. For those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 31%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 94%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 88%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 82%. The overall probability of swoy is 90%.\nDoes rixq positively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25437, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 74%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 26%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 14%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25439, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 23%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 67%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 27%. For those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 64%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 51%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 82%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 4%. The overall probability of swoy is 81%.\nDoes rixq positively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25440, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 23%. For those who are not rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 67%. For those who are rixq and are not zuph, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are rixq and are zuph, the probability of xevu is 27%. For those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 64%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 51%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of zuph is 82%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of zuph is 4%. The overall probability of swoy is 81%.\nDoes rixq negatively affect xevu through zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25458, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 87%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 48%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25459, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 87%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 48%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25461, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 64%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 31%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 31%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 23%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25467, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 73%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 23%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25469, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to zuph. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25471, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 48%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 21%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25478, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 88%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 92%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25481, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 42%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 51%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 39%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25482, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25483, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25489, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25498, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 13%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 58%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 9%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25501, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 53%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 43%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 32%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25505, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 69%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 11%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 28%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25512, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 81%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 64%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25514, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25522, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 57%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 36%. The overall probability of zuph is 78%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25526, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 33%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 38%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 15%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25527, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoy.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25528, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25529, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 30%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 91%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 51%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 93%. The overall probability of zuph is 96%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 97%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 2%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 90%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25532, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 43%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 52%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 56%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 61%. The overall probability of zuph is 53%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25537, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 61%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 77%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 61%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 77%. The overall probability of zuph is 71%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25538, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 67%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 1%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 77%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 74%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of swoy is 8%. For those who are rixq, the probability of swoy is 9%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25539, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 66%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 61%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 77%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25541, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 36%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 49%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 56%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 43%. The overall probability of zuph is 36%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 38%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 42%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 47%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25544, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25546, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 27%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 55%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 14%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 97%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of swoy is 90%. For those who are rixq, the probability of swoy is 80%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25547, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 45%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 29%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 36%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25548, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how rixq correlates with xevu case by case according to swoy. Method 2: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25551, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 50%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 49%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 44%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25553, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 88%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 67%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 82%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25554, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 78%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 93%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 89%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 61%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of swoy is 28%. For those who are rixq, the probability of swoy is 12%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25555, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 81%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 82%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 85%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25556, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 81%. For those who are not zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are zuph and are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 76%. For those who are zuph and are rixq, the probability of xevu is 49%. The overall probability of zuph is 54%.\nWill rixq increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25557, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 84%. For those who are not rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 53%. For those who are rixq and are not swoy, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are rixq and are swoy, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of swoy is 13%. For those who are rixq, the probability of swoy is 23%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25558, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 40%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 80%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 49%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25559, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 40%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 80%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 49%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25560, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 40%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 48%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 19%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25570, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 2%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 76%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 2%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25572, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 23%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 41%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 54%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25582, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 24%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25583, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 24%.\nFor those who are rixq, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 21%. For those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 24%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25588, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how rixq correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zuph.\nTo understand how rixq affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25589, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not rixq, the probability of xevu is 59%. For those who are rixq, the probability of xevu is 90%.\nWill rixq decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25591, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 65%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 21%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 58%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25595, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of rixq is 53%. The probability of not rixq and xevu is 10%. The probability of rixq and xevu is 39%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25603, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 15%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 34%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25609, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 87%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 87%.\nDoes kwox negatively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 31%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 87%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 87%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25613, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 82%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 64%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 64%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25614, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25616, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 54%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 27%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 54%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 27%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25620, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 66%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 66%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 52%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 56%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25631, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 50%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 28%.\nDoes kwox positively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25635, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25637, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 44%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 26%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 96%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 44%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 26%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 96%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 2%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 25%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25654, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25655, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nFor those who are swoq, the correlation between kwox and kwoz is -0.09.\nIf we look at those who are swoq, does it mean that kwox affects kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25656, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 19%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 30%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 30%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25658, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25661, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 73%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 54%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 54%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25669, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 60%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 92%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 31%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 40%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 86%.\nIf we look at those who are swoq, does the chance of kwoz decrease when kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25672, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 55%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 6%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 18%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 9%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 0%.\nIf we look at those who are swoq, does the chance of kwoz decrease when kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25677, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 23%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 3%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 96%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 74%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 6%.\nIf we look at those who are swoq, does the chance of kwoz increase when kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25680, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Kwoz has a direct effect on swoq.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 4%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 30%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 64%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 82%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 32%.\nIf we look at those who are swoq, does the chance of kwoz decrease when kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25681, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 86%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 71%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 31%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25686, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 92%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 72%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25695, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 65%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 16%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 50%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to swoq.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25697, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to swoq. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25706, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 44%. For those who are not swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 12%. For those who are swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 9%. For those who are swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 92%. The overall probability of swoq is 18%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25715, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 70%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 43%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 33%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25716, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to swoq. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25718, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 71%. For those who are not swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 62%. For those who are swoq and are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 84%. For those who are swoq and are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 36%. The overall probability of swoq is 46%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 40%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 47%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 22%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25722, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 24%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 15%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 8%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 51%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 12%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 50%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through swoq, would kwox negatively affect kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25746, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 26%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 18%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25753, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 35%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 57%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25765, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 35%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 27%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 18%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 41%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 21%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 21%.\nDoes kwox positively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25768, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 45%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 5%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 21%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 48%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 21%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 49%. The overall probability of kwox is 52%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25770, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 45%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 5%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 21%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 48%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 21%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 49%. The overall probability of kwox is 52%.\nDoes kwox negatively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to muvy. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25775, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 8%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 65%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 86%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 60%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 85%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 62%. The overall probability of kwox is 86%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25777, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 86%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 60%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 85%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 62%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 8%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 65%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25778, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 8%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 65%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 86%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 60%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 85%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 62%. The overall probability of kwox is 86%.\nDoes kwox negatively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25779, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 86%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 84%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 70%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 86%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 12%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 60%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25783, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 40%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 47%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 54%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 40%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 28%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 22%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25785, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to muvy. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25787, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 36%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 69%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 31%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 69%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 18%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 5%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25789, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 71%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 12%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 24%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25790, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to muvy.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25794, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 83%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 11%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 51%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25797, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 37%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 83%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 10%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 79%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 56%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 34%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 37%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 83%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 10%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 79%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 56%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 34%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25799, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 56%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 34%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 37%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 83%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 10%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 79%. The overall probability of kwox is 70%.\nDoes kwox positively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25800, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 56%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 34%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 37%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 83%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 10%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 79%. The overall probability of kwox is 70%.\nDoes kwox negatively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25801, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 70%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 63%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 34%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25802, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 80%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 68%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 79%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 96%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 98%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 82%. The overall probability of kwox is 2%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25805, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 53%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 82%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 51%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 66%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 38%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 23%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25806, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 21%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 64%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 54%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25809, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to muvy. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25810, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 11%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 84%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 9%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25812, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 9%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 38%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 96%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 10%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 96%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 10%. The overall probability of kwox is 26%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25814, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of swoq is 9%. For those who are kwox, the probability of swoq is 38%. For those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 96%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 10%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 96%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 10%. The overall probability of kwox is 26%.\nDoes kwox positively affect kwoz through swoq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25815, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 26%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 88%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 63%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25817, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to muvy.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25827, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 42%. For those who are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 42%. For those who are not swoq, the probability of kwox is 46%. For those who are swoq, the probability of kwox is 46%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25833, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 56%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 23%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 14%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25844, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 21%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 72%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 5%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25859, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 33%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 28%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 15%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25862, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 45%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 68%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 19%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 52%. For those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of swoq is 88%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of swoq is 30%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of swoq is 1%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of swoq is 87%. The overall probability of muvy is 10%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through swoq, would kwox positively affect kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25871, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 32%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 84%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25884, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 12%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 23%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 75%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25885, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 12%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 22%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 8%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to swoq. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25888, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 19%. For those who are not kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 65%. For those who are kwox and are not swoq, the probability of kwoz is 78%. For those who are kwox and are swoq, the probability of kwoz is 67%. For those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of swoq is 90%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of swoq is 73%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of swoq is 74%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of swoq is 2%. The overall probability of muvy is 70%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through swoq, would kwox positively affect kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25890, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 22%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 43%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 17%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25893, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 15%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 28%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25897, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 24%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 25%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 72%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25901, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 53%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 5%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 33%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25906, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 55%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 52%.\nDoes kwox positively affect kwoz through swoq and muvy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25907, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 55%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 52%.\nDoes kwox negatively affect kwoz through swoq and muvy?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25908, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 93%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 4%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 48%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25909, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 93%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 4%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 48%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25911, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 62%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 51%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25913, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 62%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 51%.\nDoes kwox positively affect kwoz through swoq and muvy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25919, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 39%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 83%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25923, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 46%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 22%.\nDoes kwox positively affect kwoz through swoq and muvy?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25925, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 31%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 31%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 7%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25932, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 34%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 40%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 4%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 34%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 40%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25941, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 33%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 45%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25942, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 70%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 33%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 45%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 59%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 22%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 43%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 99%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of muvy is 32%. For those who are kwox, the probability of muvy is 74%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25953, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 54%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 47%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 85%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25954, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 54%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 22%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 46%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25957, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 10%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 6%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 74%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 81%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of muvy is 94%. For those who are kwox, the probability of muvy is 97%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 87%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 42%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 42%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 5%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of muvy is 66%. For those who are kwox, the probability of muvy is 66%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25964, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to muvy. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 79%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 71%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 72%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 71%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of muvy is 23%. For those who are kwox, the probability of muvy is 23%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25967, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 82%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 77%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 71%.\nIs kwoz more likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25968, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 82%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 77%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 71%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25969, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to muvy.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25972, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 43%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 70%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 14%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 43%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of muvy is 5%. For those who are kwox, the probability of muvy is 11%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 52%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 45%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 18%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 65%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 29%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 29%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25979, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 93%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 62%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 17%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 97%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of muvy is 57%. For those who are kwox, the probability of muvy is 22%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 93%. For those who are not kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 62%. For those who are kwox and are not muvy, the probability of kwoz is 17%. For those who are kwox and are muvy, the probability of kwoz is 97%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of muvy is 57%. For those who are kwox, the probability of muvy is 22%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25982, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 77%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 75%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 34%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25987, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 62%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 87%.\nWill kwox decrease the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 27%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 65%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25995, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 27%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 65%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 25996, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 86%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 27%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 65%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 25998, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 94%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 33%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26000, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nMethod 1: We look at how kwox correlates with kwoz case by case according to swoq. Method 2: We look directly at how kwox correlates with kwoz in general.\nTo understand how kwox affects kwoz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 35%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 65%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be less likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 53%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 64%.\nWill kwox increase the chance of kwoz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26009, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 58%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 23%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 37%.\nIs the chance of kwoz larger when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nFor those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 47%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 92%.\nFor those who are kwox, would it be more likely to see kwoz if the individual was not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26011, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 1%. For those who are not kwox, the probability of kwoz is 47%. For those who are kwox, the probability of kwoz is 92%.\nIs kwoz less likely than not kwoz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26012, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nThe overall probability of kwox is 1%. The probability of not kwox and kwoz is 46%. The probability of kwox and kwoz is 1%.\nIs the chance of kwoz smaller when observing kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26029, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 43%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 49%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26030, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 59%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 60%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26032, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26039, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 61%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 64%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26042, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 29%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 44%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 18%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26044, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 88%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 11%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 73%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26045, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26053, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 89%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 70%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 55%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26059, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26063, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 20%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 34%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26065, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 72%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 6%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 25%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26066, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26073, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 62%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 65%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 65%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26074, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26079, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26086, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 31%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 37%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 37%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26089, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26091, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 31%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 24%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 80%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 52%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 32%.\nIf we look at those who are tijv, does the chance of gyzp increase when xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26093, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Gyzp has a direct effect on tijv.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26103, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 48%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 36%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 67%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26109, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 45%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 45%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 11%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26110, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 45%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 45%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 11%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26112, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 22%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 3%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 91%. The overall probability of tijv is 37%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26119, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 64%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 3%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 49%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26121, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26123, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 68%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 63%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 88%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 44%. The overall probability of tijv is 82%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26126, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 81%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 53%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 77%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 79%. The overall probability of tijv is 68%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26130, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26133, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 42%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 24%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 9%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26136, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 56%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 40%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 23%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26138, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 15%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 30%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 15%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 66%. The overall probability of tijv is 79%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26139, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26152, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26171, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 75%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 51%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 56%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 21%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 61%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 99%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through tijv, would xevo positively affect gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26183, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26185, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 17%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 72%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26198, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 34%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 93%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 19%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26200, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 34%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 61%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 6%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26201, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26205, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijw. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26208, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 47%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 22%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 67%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 18%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 50%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 14%. The overall probability of xevo is 80%.\nDoes xevo negatively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26209, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 80%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 44%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 42%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26212, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 53%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 86%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 58%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 80%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 83%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 19%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26215, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 77%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 80%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 62%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26216, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26220, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 59%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 49%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 47%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26221, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 59%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 49%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 47%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26222, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 59%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 20%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 28%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26223, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijw. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26227, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 63%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 21%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 36%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26230, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 20%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 44%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 36%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 10%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 35%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 10%. The overall probability of xevo is 56%.\nDoes xevo negatively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26231, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 56%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 31%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 24%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26235, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 75%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 42%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 35%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 78%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 40%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 79%. The overall probability of xevo is 36%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 75%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 42%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 35%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 78%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 40%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 79%. The overall probability of xevo is 36%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26238, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 36%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 43%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 20%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26239, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 14%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 72%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 28%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 15%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 28%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 15%. The overall probability of xevo is 9%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26243, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 9%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 24%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 2%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26245, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26246, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 0%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 31%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 54%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 40%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 56%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 40%. The overall probability of xevo is 30%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26255, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of tijv is 31%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijv is 83%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 70%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 28%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 70%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 29%. The overall probability of xevo is 22%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26257, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 22%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 44%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 8%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26258, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijw. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26261, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 51%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 29%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 21%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 60%. For those who are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 51%. For those who are not tijv, the probability of xevo is 43%. For those who are tijv, the probability of xevo is 26%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26269, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 86%. For those who are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 90%. For those who are not tijv, the probability of xevo is 88%. For those who are tijv, the probability of xevo is 3%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26271, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26276, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 30%. For those who are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 47%. For those who are not tijv, the probability of xevo is 86%. For those who are tijv, the probability of xevo is 54%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26281, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 49%. For those who are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 69%. For those who are not tijv, the probability of xevo is 56%. For those who are tijv, the probability of xevo is 16%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26287, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 24%. For those who are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 30%. For those who are not tijv, the probability of xevo is 26%. For those who are tijv, the probability of xevo is 87%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26288, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 33%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 21%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 29%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26303, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 60%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 19%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 24%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26306, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 25%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 39%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26307, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 25%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 39%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26308, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 25%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 39%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26309, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 34%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 15%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 57%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 24%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 31%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 71%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 65%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 41%. The overall probability of tijw is 28%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 22%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 33%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 65%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 89%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 18%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 91%. The overall probability of tijw is 60%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26316, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 22%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 33%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 65%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 89%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 18%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 91%. The overall probability of tijw is 60%.\nDoes xevo negatively affect gyzp through tijv?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26317, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 91%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 3%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 33%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26319, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 60%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 57%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26323, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijv. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26333, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 72%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 69%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 41%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 81%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 79%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 75%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 74%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 82%. The overall probability of tijw is 45%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through tijv, would xevo positively affect gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26334, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 72%. For those who are not xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 69%. For those who are xevo and are not tijv, the probability of gyzp is 41%. For those who are xevo and are tijv, the probability of gyzp is 81%. For those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 79%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 75%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of tijv is 74%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of tijv is 82%. The overall probability of tijw is 45%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through tijv, would xevo negatively affect gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26343, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijv.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26344, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 87%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 47%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 57%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 39%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 57%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 39%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26353, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 47%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 49%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26355, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 97%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 1%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 48%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26356, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 97%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 1%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 48%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26357, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26359, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 61%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 58%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26360, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 61%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 58%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26362, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26368, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 87%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 32%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 19%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 56%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 44%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 38%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 32%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv and tijw?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26382, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 18%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 38%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 32%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26383, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 18%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 31%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 6%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to tijw.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26389, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 53%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 28%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26391, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 32%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 58%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26392, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 32%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 58%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26393, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 32%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 58%.\nDoes xevo positively affect gyzp through tijv and tijw?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26394, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 32%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 58%.\nDoes xevo negatively affect gyzp through tijv and tijw?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26399, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 76%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 76%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 12%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 14%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijw is 28%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijw is 14%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26400, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 16%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 76%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 13%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26403, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 50%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 67%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 52%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 64%. The overall probability of tijv is 32%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26404, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 63%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 43%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 53%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 75%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijw is 61%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijw is 59%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26406, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 16%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 51%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 66%.\nIs gyzp more likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 16%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 43%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 10%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26408, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 29%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 14%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 11%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 16%. The overall probability of tijv is 88%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26410, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 11%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 52%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 16%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 12%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijw is 42%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijw is 3%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26411, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 89%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 3%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 14%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26413, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 86%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 90%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 73%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 93%. The overall probability of tijv is 33%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26418, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 61%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 29%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 41%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26420, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijw. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26422, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 42%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 31%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 21%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijw. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26424, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are not xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 44%. For those who are xevo and are not tijw, the probability of gyzp is 30%. For those who are xevo and are tijw, the probability of gyzp is 6%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of tijw is 27%. For those who are xevo, the probability of tijw is 28%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be less likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26425, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 64%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 23%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 64%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 15%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 15%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26427, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 27%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 49%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 68%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26430, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 84%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 67%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 53%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 38%. The overall probability of tijv is 55%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26436, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nMethod 1: We look at how xevo correlates with gyzp case by case according to tijw. Method 2: We look directly at how xevo correlates with gyzp in general.\nTo understand how xevo affects gyzp, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26437, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 66%. For those who are not tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 91%. For those who are tijv and are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 79%. For those who are tijv and are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 90%. The overall probability of tijv is 18%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26440, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 42%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 43%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26444, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 58%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 52%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26449, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 12%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 39%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 7%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 33%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 91%.\nWill xevo increase the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 81%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 6%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 74%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26454, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 81%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 6%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 74%.\nIs the chance of gyzp smaller when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26460, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 25%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 23%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 83%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 29%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26465, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 62%. The probability of not xevo and gyzp is 31%. The probability of xevo and gyzp is 18%.\nIs the chance of gyzp larger when observing xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26467, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 49%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 36%.\nWill xevo decrease the chance of gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26468, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nFor those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 49%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 36%.\nFor those who are xevo, would it be more likely to see gyzp if the individual was not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26476, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nThe overall probability of xevo is 98%. For those who are not xevo, the probability of gyzp is 89%. For those who are xevo, the probability of gyzp is 19%.\nIs gyzp less likely than not gyzp overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26479, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 63%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 64%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26486, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 68%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 40%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26487, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 68%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 40%.\nDoes yomx positively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26488, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 68%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 40%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26489, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26491, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 61%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26494, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 63%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 61%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26495, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 63%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 22%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 38%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26498, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 66%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 85%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26504, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 57%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 52%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26506, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 92%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 5%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 47%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26507, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 70%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 68%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 70%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 68%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26514, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 78%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 62%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26515, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 78%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 62%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26516, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 78%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 62%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26518, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 78%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 62%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26520, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 74%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 36%.\nDoes yomx positively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26522, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26523, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 76%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 76%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26528, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 1%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 44%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 1%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26531, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26534, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nFor those who are gwet, the correlation between yomx and xevu is 0.21.\nIf we look at those who are gwet, does it mean that yomx does not affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26537, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nFor those who are gwet, the correlation between yomx and xevu is -0.15.\nIf we look at those who are gwet, does it mean that yomx affects xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26539, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 46%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 92%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 92%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26546, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nFor those who are gwet, the correlation between yomx and xevu is 0.00.\nIf we look at those who are gwet, does it mean that yomx does not affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26547, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 0%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 16%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 51%.\nIf we look at those who are gwet, does the chance of xevu increase when yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26550, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 36%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 1%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 1%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26558, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Xevu has a direct effect on gwet.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26562, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 87%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 10%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 62%. The overall probability of gwet is 9%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 72%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 87%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 10%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 62%. The overall probability of gwet is 9%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26564, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 56%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 87%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26575, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 30%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 12%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 10%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 30%. The overall probability of gwet is 5%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26577, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 19%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 24%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 3%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26578, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 19%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 24%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 3%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26580, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26581, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 78%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 15%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 36%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 63%. The overall probability of gwet is 12%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 64%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 84%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 49%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 47%. The overall probability of gwet is 74%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26587, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 53%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 6%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 37%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26588, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26591, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 38%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 54%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 34%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 15%. The overall probability of gwet is 95%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 90%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 73%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 85%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 90%. The overall probability of gwet is 15%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 90%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 73%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 85%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 90%. The overall probability of gwet is 15%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26598, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 75%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 88%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 74%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26599, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 75%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 22%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 56%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26602, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 51%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 33%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 28%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 92%. The overall probability of gwet is 27%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26605, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 41%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 9%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 76%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 84%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26621, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 37%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 27%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 37%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 27%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26626, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 99%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 8%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 21%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 30%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 68%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 73%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 99%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 8%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 21%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 30%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 68%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 73%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through gwet, would yomx negatively affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26633, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 27%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 88%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26637, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 64%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 10%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 57%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26651, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 48%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 29%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 32%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26655, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 92%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 8%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 46%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26656, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 92%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 8%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 46%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26657, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 33%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 21%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 42%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 11%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 78%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 52%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26663, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 71%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 22%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 34%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 68%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 64%. The overall probability of yomx is 11%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26665, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 71%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 22%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 34%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 68%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 64%. The overall probability of yomx is 11%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26666, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 11%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 58%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 38%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26667, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 11%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 52%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 4%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26668, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26669, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 12%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 51%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 74%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 12%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 38%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 2%. The overall probability of yomx is 12%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26670, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 74%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 12%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 38%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 2%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 12%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 51%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26672, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 12%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 66%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 19%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26673, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26674, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 84%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 26%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 67%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 20%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 49%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 28%. The overall probability of yomx is 82%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26675, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 67%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 20%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 49%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 28%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 84%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 26%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26676, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 67%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 20%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 49%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 28%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 84%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 26%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 82%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 5%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 35%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26679, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26681, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 79%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 5%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 83%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 28%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 84%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 40%. The overall probability of yomx is 21%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26683, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 21%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 31%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 17%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26685, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 25%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 72%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 23%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 26%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 22%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 23%. The overall probability of yomx is 29%.\nDoes yomx positively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26686, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 20%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 58%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 24%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 56%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 56%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 34%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26690, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 64%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 49%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 58%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 89%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 70%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 44%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26691, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 70%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 44%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 64%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 49%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 58%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 89%. The overall probability of yomx is 43%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26692, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 43%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 53%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 72%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 43%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 30%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 31%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26694, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 43%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 30%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 31%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26695, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26698, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 0%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 73%. For those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 53%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 33%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 48%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 32%. The overall probability of yomx is 32%.\nDoes yomx positively affect xevu through gwet?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26704, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 38%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 50%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of gwet is 54%. For those who are yomx, the probability of gwet is 69%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26705, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 16%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 39%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 46%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26706, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 16%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 39%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 46%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26716, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 48%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 33%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 17%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 48%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 88%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 32%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26726, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 56%. For those who are gwet, the probability of xevu is 42%. For those who are not gwet, the probability of yomx is 62%. For those who are gwet, the probability of yomx is 35%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26729, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 39%. For those who are gwet, the probability of xevu is 47%. For those who are not gwet, the probability of yomx is 77%. For those who are gwet, the probability of yomx is 55%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26730, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 39%. For those who are gwet, the probability of xevu is 47%. For those who are not gwet, the probability of yomx is 77%. For those who are gwet, the probability of yomx is 55%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26733, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26735, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 53%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 17%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 79%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26743, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26747, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 44%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 40%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 76%. For those who are not yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of gwet is 20%. For those who are not yomx and are cwoi, the probability of gwet is 77%. For those who are yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of gwet is 91%. For those who are yomx and are cwoi, the probability of gwet is 64%. The overall probability of cwoi is 47%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through gwet, would yomx negatively affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26749, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26766, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 2%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 63%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 70%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26774, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 75%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 67%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 61%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 81%. For those who are not yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of gwet is 80%. For those who are not yomx and are cwoi, the probability of gwet is 22%. For those who are yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of gwet is 96%. For those who are yomx and are cwoi, the probability of gwet is 13%. The overall probability of cwoi is 60%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through gwet, would yomx negatively affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 57%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 28%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 18%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26781, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 57%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 28%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 18%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26786, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 69%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 31%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 9%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 64%. For those who are not yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of gwet is 14%. For those who are not yomx and are cwoi, the probability of gwet is 82%. For those who are yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of gwet is 3%. For those who are yomx and are cwoi, the probability of gwet is 26%. The overall probability of cwoi is 14%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through gwet, would yomx positively affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26789, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 36%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 38%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 5%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26790, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 36%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 38%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 5%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26793, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 36%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 38%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26796, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 79%. For those who are not yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 24%. For those who are yomx and are not gwet, the probability of xevu is 48%. For those who are yomx and are gwet, the probability of xevu is 32%. For those who are not yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of gwet is 77%. For those who are not yomx and are cwoi, the probability of gwet is 81%. For those who are yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of gwet is 78%. For those who are yomx and are cwoi, the probability of gwet is 39%. The overall probability of cwoi is 11%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through gwet, would yomx negatively affect xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26799, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 61%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 34%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26802, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 61%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 34%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26804, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 22%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 48%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 7%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26806, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 71%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 30%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26809, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 45%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 45%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26810, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 45%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 45%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26814, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 91%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 45%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 45%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26815, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 91%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 4%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 41%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26818, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26819, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 51%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 57%.\nDoes yomx negatively affect xevu through gwet and cwoi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26822, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 52%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 27%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26825, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 10%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 46%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 3%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26827, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26834, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 12%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 48%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26840, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to cwoi.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26848, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of xevu is 80%. For those who are not yomx and are cwoi, the probability of xevu is 88%. For those who are yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are yomx and are cwoi, the probability of xevu is 65%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of cwoi is 98%. For those who are yomx, the probability of cwoi is 98%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26851, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 35%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 28%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 49%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26852, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 35%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 28%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 49%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26853, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 59%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 21%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 83%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 34%. The overall probability of gwet is 88%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26854, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 18%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 64%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 34%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 61%. The overall probability of gwet is 56%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26855, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of xevu is 8%. For those who are not yomx and are cwoi, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of xevu is 66%. For those who are yomx and are cwoi, the probability of xevu is 56%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of cwoi is 41%. For those who are yomx, the probability of cwoi is 34%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be less likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26856, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 66%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 10%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 42%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26858, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of xevu is 42%. For those who are not yomx and are cwoi, the probability of xevu is 33%. For those who are yomx and are not cwoi, the probability of xevu is 74%. For those who are yomx and are cwoi, the probability of xevu is 2%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of cwoi is 28%. For those who are yomx, the probability of cwoi is 45%.\nFor those who are yomx, would it be more likely to see xevu if the individual was not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26860, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 41%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 39%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 41%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26861, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 41%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 23%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 17%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26864, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 66%. For those who are not gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 24%. For those who are gwet and are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 53%. For those who are gwet and are yomx, the probability of xevu is 52%. The overall probability of gwet is 93%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26867, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 56%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 24%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 28%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26868, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 76%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 83%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 93%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26870, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 76%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 20%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 71%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26874, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 20%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 86%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 25%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26875, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 20%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 68%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 5%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26876, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 20%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 68%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 5%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26879, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 87%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 84%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 61%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 87%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 11%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 53%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26881, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to cwoi. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26883, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 11%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 37%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 8%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26885, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gwet.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 30%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 51%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26888, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 21%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 30%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 51%.\nIs xevu less likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26890, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 18%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 42%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26891, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 18%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 42%.\nWill yomx decrease the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26896, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nFor those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 60%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 88%.\nWill yomx increase the chance of xevu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26910, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 5%. For those who are not yomx, the probability of xevu is 46%. For those who are yomx, the probability of xevu is 43%.\nIs xevu more likely than not xevu overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26913, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nMethod 1: We look at how yomx correlates with xevu case by case according to gwet. Method 2: We look directly at how yomx correlates with xevu in general.\nTo understand how yomx affects xevu, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26916, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 54%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 36%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 36%.\nIs the chance of xevu larger when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26917, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nThe overall probability of yomx is 54%. The probability of not yomx and xevu is 36%. The probability of yomx and xevu is 36%.\nIs the chance of xevu smaller when observing yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26921, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 45%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 41%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26923, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 45%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 41%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26925, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 33%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 30%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 14%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26926, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26930, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 14%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 85%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 84%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26931, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 14%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 72%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 12%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26932, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26936, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 59%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 5%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 3%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26938, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26939, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 79%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 92%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26941, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 61%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 79%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 92%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26942, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 61%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 79%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 92%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26946, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 59%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 66%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26951, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 77%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 12%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 53%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26953, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 15%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 15%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26954, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 15%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 15%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26956, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 15%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 15%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26957, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 15%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 15%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 4%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 15%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 15%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26959, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 47%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 53%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26963, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 21%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 2%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 1%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26965, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 39%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 21%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 36%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 39%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 21%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26967, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 36%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 25%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 7%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26969, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 2%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 97%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 97%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nFor those who are hwax, the correlation between jyka and lirg is 0.04.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does it mean that jyka affects lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26972, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 57%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 24%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 24%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 72%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 94%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 57%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 54%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 79%.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does the chance of lirg increase when jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nFor those who are hwax, the correlation between jyka and lirg is -0.35.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does it mean that jyka does not affect lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26983, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26984, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 4%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 91%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 72%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 69%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 85%.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does the chance of lirg increase when jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26987, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 20%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 95%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 95%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26990, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nFor those who are hwax, the correlation between jyka and lirg is -0.31.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does it mean that jyka affects lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 26992, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 59%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 11%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 11%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 26997, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Lirg has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 79%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 63%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 63%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27004, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 16%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 31%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 13%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27006, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 47%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 22%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 73%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27011, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 47%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 22%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 73%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27014, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 76%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 95%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 63%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 15%. The overall probability of hwax is 76%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27018, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 64%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 6%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 77%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 76%. The overall probability of hwax is 97%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27019, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 64%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 6%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 77%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 76%. The overall probability of hwax is 97%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27020, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 22%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 77%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 67%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27027, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 58%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 26%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 24%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27028, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 4%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 42%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 34%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 94%. The overall probability of hwax is 97%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27030, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 91%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 68%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 9%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 61%. The overall probability of hwax is 29%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27035, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 20%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 27%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 95%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 77%. The overall probability of hwax is 27%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27036, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 63%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 72%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 28%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27039, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 29%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 22%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 53%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 39%. The overall probability of hwax is 76%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27048, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 91%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 71%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 62%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 95%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 82%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 64%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would jyka negatively affect lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27054, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 33%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 21%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 81%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27058, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 6%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 61%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 16%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 19%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 26%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 91%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would jyka negatively affect lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27059, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 14%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 20%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 19%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27063, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 32%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 63%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 63%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 30%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 17%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 38%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would jyka negatively affect lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27064, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 28%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 38%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 51%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27065, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27074, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 67%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 18%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27078, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 77%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 44%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27081, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 55%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 77%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 44%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27082, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 55%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 34%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 24%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27083, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 5%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 27%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27085, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 2%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 59%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 2%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 93%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 5%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 27%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would jyka positively affect lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27088, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 40%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 3%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 11%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27090, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 30%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 51%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 85%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 87%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 12%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 13%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would jyka negatively affect lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27091, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 25%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 25%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 21%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27095, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 86%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 55%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 32%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 82%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 28%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 81%. The overall probability of jyka is 52%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27096, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 52%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 75%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 57%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27098, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 54%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 16%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 19%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27103, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 99%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 63%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 83%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 7%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 67%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 15%. The overall probability of jyka is 87%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27105, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gyzp.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27107, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 92%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 48%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 45%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 29%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 52%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 33%. The overall probability of jyka is 88%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27108, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 92%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 48%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 45%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 29%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 52%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 33%. The overall probability of jyka is 88%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27111, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 47%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 6%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 57%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 29%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 63%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 30%. The overall probability of jyka is 21%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27112, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 47%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 6%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 57%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 29%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 63%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 30%. The overall probability of jyka is 21%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 21%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 44%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 61%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27114, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gyzp.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27116, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 65%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 82%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 65%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 82%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 36%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 65%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27118, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 36%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 65%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 65%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 82%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 65%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 82%. The overall probability of jyka is 88%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27119, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 88%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 71%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 76%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27120, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 88%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 71%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 76%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27122, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 98%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 72%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 65%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 53%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 65%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 53%. The overall probability of jyka is 65%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27124, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 65%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 54%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 57%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27126, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 86%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 23%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 81%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 87%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 77%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 82%. The overall probability of jyka is 74%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27127, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 81%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 87%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 77%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 82%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 86%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 23%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27128, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 81%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 87%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 77%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 82%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 86%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 23%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 74%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 23%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 58%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27130, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 74%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 23%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 58%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27132, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 80%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 69%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 80%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 67%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 53%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 36%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27133, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 80%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 69%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 80%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 67%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 53%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 36%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27134, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 53%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 36%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 80%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 69%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 80%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 67%. The overall probability of jyka is 40%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27135, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of hwax is 69%. For those who are jyka, the probability of hwax is 7%. For those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 60%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 72%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 57%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 60%. The overall probability of jyka is 94%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27139, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 94%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 4%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 54%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27140, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 28%. For those who are hwax, the probability of lirg is 28%. For those who are not hwax, the probability of jyka is 18%. For those who are hwax, the probability of jyka is 16%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27147, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 65%. For those who are hwax, the probability of lirg is 65%. For those who are not hwax, the probability of jyka is 73%. For those who are hwax, the probability of jyka is 80%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27148, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 77%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 10%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 57%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27153, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 62%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 14%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 26%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27157, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 81%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 17%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 43%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27161, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 75%. For those who are hwax, the probability of lirg is 80%. For those who are not hwax, the probability of jyka is 61%. For those who are hwax, the probability of jyka is 37%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27163, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27165, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 53%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 41%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 24%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 53%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 19%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 13%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27167, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gyzp.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27180, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27182, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 21%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 51%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27185, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 17%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 38%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 44%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 88%. For those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of hwax is 20%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of hwax is 9%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of hwax is 39%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of hwax is 2%. The overall probability of gyzp is 82%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would jyka positively affect lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27188, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27191, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 33%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 37%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27197, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 73%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 10%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 30%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27201, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 34%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 50%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 36%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 48%. For those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of hwax is 80%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of hwax is 56%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of hwax is 13%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of hwax is 96%. The overall probability of gyzp is 18%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27208, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 41%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 54%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 31%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27209, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 64%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 65%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27219, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 46%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 32%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27221, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 54%. For those who are not jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 45%. For those who are jyka and are not hwax, the probability of lirg is 40%. For those who are jyka and are hwax, the probability of lirg is 28%. For those who are not jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of hwax is 34%. For those who are not jyka and are gyzp, the probability of hwax is 75%. For those who are jyka and are not gyzp, the probability of hwax is 34%. For those who are jyka and are gyzp, the probability of hwax is 62%. The overall probability of gyzp is 95%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect lirg through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27224, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 49%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 46%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 32%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27226, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 12%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 42%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 5%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27229, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 91%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 58%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 62%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27238, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 32%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 22%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax and gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27242, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27247, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 80%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 62%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27249, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 80%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 62%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax and gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27250, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 67%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 26%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 42%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27254, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 50%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 40%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27255, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 50%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 40%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax and gyzp?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27256, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 50%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 40%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect lirg through hwax and gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27258, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 97%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 50%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 40%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27259, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 97%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 1%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 39%.\nIs the chance of lirg larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27260, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 51%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 77%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 74%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27268, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 52%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 60%.\nDoes jyka positively affect lirg through hwax and gyzp?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27274, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 56%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 92%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 39%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27277, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 52%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 24%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 48%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 35%. The overall probability of hwax is 86%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27279, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 43%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 49%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 33%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27282, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 77%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 10%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 55%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27286, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 65%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 90%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 65%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27287, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gyzp.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27288, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with lirg case by case according to gyzp. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27289, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 44%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 14%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 52%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 27%. The overall probability of hwax is 57%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27290, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 44%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 14%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 52%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 27%. The overall probability of hwax is 57%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27294, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 38%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 32%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 21%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27295, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to gyzp.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27296, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 73%. For those who are not hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 38%. For those who are hwax and are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 72%. For those who are hwax and are jyka, the probability of lirg is 35%. The overall probability of hwax is 98%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27297, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 18%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 72%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 35%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27298, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 18%. The probability of not jyka and lirg is 59%. The probability of jyka and lirg is 6%.\nIs the chance of lirg smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27300, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 10%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 9%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 34%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27304, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 71%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 36%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27305, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 71%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 36%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27306, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with lirg in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how jyka affects lirg, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27308, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 32%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 41%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27309, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 86%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 32%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 41%.\nIs lirg more likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 53%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 55%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 67%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 61%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27319, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 67%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 61%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27322, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 76%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 44%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 81%.\nIs lirg less likely than not lirg overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27326, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 49%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 61%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27329, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 20%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 40%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of lirg?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27334, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of lirg is 4%. For those who are jyka, the probability of lirg is 90%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see lirg if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27340, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 58%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 42%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27341, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 73%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 58%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 42%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27346, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 66%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 77%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27347, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 66%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 77%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27351, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 13%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 20%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27354, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27355, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 6%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 7%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27356, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 6%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 7%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 72%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 6%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 7%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27359, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 72%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 2%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 5%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27362, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 45%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 38%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27364, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 45%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 38%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27365, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 81%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 45%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 38%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27368, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 81%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 9%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 30%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27369, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27371, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 32%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 34%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27372, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 58%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 32%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 34%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27374, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 58%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 13%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 20%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27375, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 21%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 16%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27376, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 21%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 16%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27381, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 65%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 28%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 57%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27383, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 3%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 3%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27388, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to yupt.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27389, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nFor those who are yupt, the correlation between jyka and kwox is -0.20.\nIf we look at those who are yupt, does it mean that jyka affects kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27393, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27394, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 97%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 39%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 53%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 51%.\nIf we look at those who are yupt, does the chance of kwox decrease when jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27398, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 54%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 5%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 5%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27400, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 77%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 88%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 88%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27401, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 59%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 33%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 33%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27410, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 67%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 41%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 41%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27414, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Kwox has a direct effect on yupt.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 67%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 51%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 12%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 13%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 64%.\nIf we look at those who are yupt, does the chance of kwox decrease when jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27416, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 85%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 56%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27419, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 29%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 56%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 87%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 81%. The overall probability of yupt is 49%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27420, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 18%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 61%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 60%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 90%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 16%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 50%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 45%. The overall probability of yupt is 11%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27430, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 34%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 29%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 16%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27433, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 84%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 82%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 66%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 42%. The overall probability of yupt is 5%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27439, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 40%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 61%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 58%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 62%. The overall probability of yupt is 59%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27440, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27449, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 69%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 4%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 53%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 13%. The overall probability of yupt is 86%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 9%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 55%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 80%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 1%. The overall probability of yupt is 46%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27456, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 31%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 65%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27458, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 57%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 31%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 65%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27460, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27461, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 18%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 51%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27467, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 46%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 10%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 24%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27471, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 24%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 57%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27480, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 30%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 64%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 12%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27481, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 21%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 42%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 36%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 78%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 11%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 21%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27484, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 41%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 13%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 19%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27485, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 67%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 23%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27487, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 96%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 69%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 4%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 60%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 70%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through yupt, would jyka positively affect kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27490, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27496, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 12%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 6%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 54%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 61%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 30%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 31%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27498, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 93%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 10%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 56%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27499, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to yupt.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27501, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 46%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 68%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27502, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 32%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 78%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 89%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 28%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 30%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 35%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through yupt, would jyka negatively affect kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27503, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27506, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 42%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27509, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 43%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 82%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 68%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 4%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 11%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 40%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 43%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 82%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 68%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 4%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 11%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 40%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through yupt, would jyka negatively affect kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27515, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 47%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 18%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 24%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 43%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 23%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 41%. The overall probability of jyka is 59%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27516, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 47%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 18%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 24%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 43%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 23%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 41%. The overall probability of jyka is 59%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27518, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 24%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 43%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 23%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 41%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 47%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 18%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27519, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 59%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 14%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 16%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27522, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 66%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 34%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 56%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 28%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 93%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 25%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27524, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 13%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 36%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 49%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27525, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 13%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 32%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 6%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27527, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 22%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 82%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 46%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 56%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 53%. The overall probability of jyka is 78%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27528, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 22%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 82%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 46%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 56%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 53%. The overall probability of jyka is 78%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27529, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 78%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 48%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 52%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27530, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 78%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 48%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 52%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27531, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 38%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 8%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 94%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 65%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 76%. The overall probability of jyka is 9%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27532, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 94%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 65%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 38%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 8%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27534, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 9%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 79%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 6%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27535, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 77%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 78%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 59%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 61%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 87%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 85%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27536, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 87%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 85%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 77%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 78%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 59%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 61%. The overall probability of jyka is 82%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27537, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 82%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 78%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 61%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27538, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 82%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 14%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 50%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27539, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 82%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 14%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 50%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27541, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 9%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 2%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 72%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 36%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 65%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 33%. The overall probability of jyka is 46%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27546, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 46%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 37%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 29%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27547, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 14%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 36%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 9%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 30%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 84%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 71%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27549, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27552, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 22%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 17%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 34%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 46%. The overall probability of jyka is 49%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27553, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 22%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 17%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 34%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 46%. The overall probability of jyka is 49%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27554, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 22%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 17%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 34%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 46%. The overall probability of jyka is 49%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27556, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 49%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 36%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27557, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 49%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 22%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 18%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27558, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27560, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 30%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 1%. For those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 97%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 29%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 99%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 53%. The overall probability of jyka is 57%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27561, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 97%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 29%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 99%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 53%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of yupt is 30%. For those who are jyka, the probability of yupt is 1%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27568, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 12%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 47%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 6%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27569, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27575, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27577, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 39%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 66%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 63%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27579, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt, the probability of kwox is 32%. For those who are yupt, the probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are not yu'detpt, the probability of jyka is 17%. For those who are yupt, the probability of jyka is 75%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27581, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 89%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 61%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 62%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27588, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 41%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 4%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 11%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27591, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt, the probability of kwox is 54%. For those who are yupt, the probability of kwox is 48%. For those who are not yu'detpt, the probability of jyka is 53%. For those who are yupt, the probability of jyka is 34%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27594, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt, the probability of kwox is 61%. For those who are yupt, the probability of kwox is 44%. For those who are not yu'detpt, the probability of jyka is 10%. For those who are yupt, the probability of jyka is 74%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 52%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 19%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27600, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27608, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 46%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 61%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 19%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 46%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 32%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 77%. For those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 92%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 98%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 37%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 71%. The overall probability of qwiu is 74%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through yupt, would jyka negatively affect kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27612, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 63%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 17%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 38%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27622, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 29%. For those who are not jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are jyka and are not yupt, the probability of kwox is 88%. For those who are jyka and are yupt, the probability of kwox is 55%. For those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 49%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 63%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of yupt is 92%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of yupt is 76%. The overall probability of qwiu is 96%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 11%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 18%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 1%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27629, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27635, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 0%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 11%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 0%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to yupt. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27639, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 34%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 64%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 41%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27645, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 90%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 10%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 87%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27647, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 55%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 84%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27648, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 55%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 84%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt and qwiu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27649, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27651, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 77%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 76%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt and qwiu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27652, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 88%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 77%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 76%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27653, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 88%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 9%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 67%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27659, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 13%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 8%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 8%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27661, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27664, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 25%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 24%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27665, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 25%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 24%.\nDoes jyka positively affect kwox through yupt and qwiu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27666, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 25%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 24%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt and qwiu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27667, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 5%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 24%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 1%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27671, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 56%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 43%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27672, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 56%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 43%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27678, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 60%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 50%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27680, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 60%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 50%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27682, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 53%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 60%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 50%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 53%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 28%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 26%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27685, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27686, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 66%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 64%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 66%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 64%.\nDoes jyka negatively affect kwox through yupt and qwiu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 78%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 66%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 64%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27691, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 43%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 57%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 56%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 40%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 45%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27699, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 58%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 45%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 58%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 45%. The overall probability of yupt is 38%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 71%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 36%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 45%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 46%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of qwiu is 37%. For those who are jyka, the probability of qwiu is 37%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27701, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 19%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 58%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 45%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27702, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 19%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 58%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 45%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27703, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 19%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 47%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 9%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27704, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 88%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 17%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 75%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 19%. The overall probability of yupt is 89%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27706, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 47%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 41%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 9%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27707, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27708, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27710, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 64%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 19%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 60%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27712, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 64%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 38%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 68%. The overall probability of yupt is 50%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27713, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 35%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 88%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 68%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 62%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of qwiu is 33%. For those who are jyka, the probability of qwiu is 47%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27716, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look at how jyka correlates with kwox case by case according to qwiu. Method 2: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 73%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 63%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 56%. The overall probability of yupt is 83%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 56%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 57%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 56%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 76%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 57%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27721, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 56%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 33%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 32%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27723, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 48%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 22%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 20%. The overall probability of yupt is 22%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27724, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27726, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 13%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 51%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 9%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 56%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of qwiu is 14%. For those who are jyka, the probability of qwiu is 15%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27727, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 15%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 18%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 16%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27728, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 15%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 16%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 2%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27729, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to qwiu.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27730, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 29%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 99%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 11%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 94%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of qwiu is 1%. For those who are jyka, the probability of qwiu is 5%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27731, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 29%. For those who are not jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 99%. For those who are jyka and are not qwiu, the probability of kwox is 11%. For those who are jyka and are qwiu, the probability of kwox is 94%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of qwiu is 1%. For those who are jyka, the probability of qwiu is 5%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27732, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 61%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 30%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 15%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27735, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 86%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 16%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 81%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not yu'detpt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are not yu'detpt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 88%. For those who are yupt and are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 48%. For those who are yupt and are jyka, the probability of kwox is 76%. The overall probability of yupt is 42%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27738, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 59%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 47%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 82%.\nIs kwox more likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27739, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 59%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 19%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 49%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27740, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 32%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 38%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27748, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 18%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 58%.\nWill jyka decrease the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27754, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 59%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 31%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 18%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27759, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 94%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 85%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 32%.\nIs kwox less likely than not kwox overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27761, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 48%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 48%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27763, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 16%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 46%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 12%.\nIs the chance of kwox smaller when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27765, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 17%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 36%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be less likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27768, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to yupt.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27770, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to yupt.\nTo understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27771, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 48%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 27%.\nWill jyka increase the chance of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of kwox is 48%. For those who are jyka, the probability of kwox is 27%.\nFor those who are jyka, would it be more likely to see kwox if the individual was not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27774, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nThe overall probability of jyka is 21%. The probability of not jyka and kwox is 38%. The probability of jyka and kwox is 6%.\nIs the chance of kwox larger when observing jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27776, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 69%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 76%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 77%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27777, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 69%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 23%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 53%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27788, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 44%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 54%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 41%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27791, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 59%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 62%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27796, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 83%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 86%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27800, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 51%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 47%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27801, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 54%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 51%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 47%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27805, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 15%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 81%.\nDoes yupt positively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27809, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 91%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 1%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 13%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27810, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to zupj. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27812, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 25%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 25%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27814, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 25%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 25%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27815, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 67%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 25%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 25%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27816, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 67%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 25%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 25%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27817, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 67%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 8%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 17%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27819, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 59%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 56%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27823, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to zupj. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27831, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 52%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 22%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 22%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27833, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to zupj. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27841, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27846, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nFor those who are zupj, the correlation between yupt and muvq is -0.10.\nIf we look at those who are zupj, does it mean that yupt affects muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27847, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 94%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 14%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 30%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 29%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 12%.\nIf we look at those who are zupj, does the chance of muvq decrease when yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27848, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 32%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 89%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 89%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27849, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 32%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 85%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 98%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 90%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 87%.\nIf we look at those who are zupj, does the chance of muvq decrease when yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27852, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27853, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Muvq has a direct effect on zupj.\nFor those who are zupj, the correlation between yupt and muvq is 0.10.\nIf we look at those who are zupj, does it mean that yupt does not affect muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27856, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 68%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 93%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 19%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 50%. The overall probability of zupj is 65%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27857, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 68%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 93%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 19%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 50%. The overall probability of zupj is 65%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27864, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 6%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 12%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 55%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 6%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 11%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 3%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27875, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27876, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to zupj. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27882, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 4%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 42%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 13%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 76%. The overall probability of zupj is 28%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27896, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 70%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 28%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 44%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27899, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 80%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 58%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27902, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 58%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 80%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 58%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27907, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 31%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 45%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 16%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27908, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 31%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 45%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 16%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27910, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 31%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 31%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 5%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27918, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 99%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 1%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 39%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27923, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 73%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 82%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 6%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 4%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 69%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 58%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27928, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 24%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 60%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27929, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 54%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 18%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 62%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 46%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 85%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 14%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27937, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 43%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 81%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 40%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27939, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 20%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 44%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27943, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27947, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 56%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 39%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27956, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 64%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 16%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 82%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 13%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 59%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 74%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through zupj, would yupt positively affect muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27960, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 23%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 87%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 23%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 86%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 80%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 39%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27961, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 23%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 87%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 23%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 86%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 80%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 39%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27962, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 80%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 39%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 23%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 87%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 23%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 86%. The overall probability of yupt is 27%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27963, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 27%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 54%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 13%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27964, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27965, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 51%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 34%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 90%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 54%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 96%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 57%. The overall probability of yupt is 69%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 51%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 34%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 90%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 54%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 96%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 57%. The overall probability of yupt is 69%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27967, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 90%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 54%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 96%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 57%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 51%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 34%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27970, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 83%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 70%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 77%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 83%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 12%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 64%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27972, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to xyfo.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27973, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 65%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 72%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 45%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 70%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 52%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 66%. The overall probability of yupt is 21%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 45%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 70%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 52%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 66%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 65%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 72%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27975, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 45%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 70%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 52%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 66%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 65%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 72%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27976, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 65%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 72%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 45%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 70%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 52%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 66%. The overall probability of yupt is 21%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 61%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 36%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 51%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 61%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 36%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 51%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27983, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27984, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 9%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 15%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 17%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 91%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 5%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 91%. The overall probability of yupt is 47%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27986, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 9%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 15%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 17%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 91%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 5%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 91%. The overall probability of yupt is 47%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27987, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 47%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 24%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 18%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27988, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 47%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 13%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 9%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27989, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to xyfo.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27990, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 37%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 29%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 68%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 46%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 82%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 30%. The overall probability of yupt is 72%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27991, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 37%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 29%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 68%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 46%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 82%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 30%. The overall probability of yupt is 72%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27992, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 37%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 29%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 68%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 46%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 82%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 30%. The overall probability of yupt is 72%.\nDoes yupt positively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 72%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 60%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 67%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27995, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 72%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 17%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 48%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 27996, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 61%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 94%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 63%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 10%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 74%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 8%. The overall probability of yupt is 38%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27997, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 63%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 10%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 74%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 8%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 61%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 94%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 27998, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 63%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 10%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 74%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 8%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 61%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 94%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 35%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 73%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 53%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 35%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 48%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 19%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28004, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of zupj is 17%. For those who are yupt, the probability of zupj is 8%. For those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 44%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 89%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 41%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 84%. The overall probability of yupt is 3%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 3%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 50%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 1%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28008, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to xyfo.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28009, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 93%. For those who are zupj, the probability of muvq is 84%. For those who are not zupj, the probability of yupt is 87%. For those who are zupj, the probability of yupt is 63%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28013, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 55%. For those who are zupj, the probability of muvq is 44%. For those who are not zupj, the probability of yupt is 22%. For those who are zupj, the probability of yupt is 67%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28019, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 61%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 65%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 96%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28024, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 27%. For those who are zupj, the probability of muvq is 29%. For those who are not zupj, the probability of yupt is 48%. For those who are zupj, the probability of yupt is 44%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28028, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28066, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 42%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 28%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 26%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 48%. For those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of zupj is 97%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of zupj is 27%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of zupj is 49%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of zupj is 8%. The overall probability of xyfo is 28%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28069, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 73%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 43%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 38%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28074, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 60%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 65%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 48%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28079, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 5%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 60%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 28%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28080, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 5%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 55%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 2%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28082, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 68%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 34%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28088, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 44%. For those who are not yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 51%. For those who are yupt and are not zupj, the probability of muvq is 57%. For those who are yupt and are zupj, the probability of muvq is 10%. For those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of zupj is 42%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of zupj is 87%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of zupj is 26%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of zupj is 44%. The overall probability of xyfo is 22%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28090, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 33%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 45%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28091, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 33%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 45%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28100, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 59%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 68%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28101, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 59%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 68%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj and xyfo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28104, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 71%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 57%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28108, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 5%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 67%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 3%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28112, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 48%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 19%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 48%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 19%.\nDoes yupt positively affect muvq through zupj and xyfo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28115, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 87%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 48%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 19%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28117, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to xyfo.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28118, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 69%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 70%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28125, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 57%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 28%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 60%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 55%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28131, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 60%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 55%.\nDoes yupt negatively affect muvq through zupj and xyfo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28137, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28141, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 62%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 14%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 17%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28142, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 62%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 5%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 11%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28143, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 30%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 29%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 31%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 74%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of xyfo is 78%. For those who are yupt, the probability of xyfo is 77%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28144, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to xyfo.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28145, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 27%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 30%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 60%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 40%. The overall probability of zupj is 41%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28147, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 83%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 8%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 28%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28148, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 83%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 8%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 28%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28151, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 8%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 5%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 16%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 33%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of xyfo is 45%. For those who are yupt, the probability of xyfo is 41%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28152, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 38%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 7%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 23%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28154, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 16%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 60%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 96%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 4%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of xyfo is 15%. For those who are yupt, the probability of xyfo is 48%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28156, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28157, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 76%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 22%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 74%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 30%. The overall probability of zupj is 59%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28158, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 76%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 22%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 74%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 30%. The overall probability of zupj is 59%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28159, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 80%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 64%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 6%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 70%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of xyfo is 27%. For those who are yupt, the probability of xyfo is 33%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28160, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 73%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 75%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 27%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28161, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 73%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 20%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 20%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 83%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 16%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 85%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 99%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of xyfo is 29%. For those who are yupt, the probability of xyfo is 52%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28163, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 83%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 16%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 85%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 99%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of xyfo is 29%. For those who are yupt, the probability of xyfo is 52%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28164, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 44%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 35%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 40%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28165, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to xyfo.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28166, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28167, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 53%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 32%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 32%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 33%. The overall probability of zupj is 68%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28171, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28172, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 54%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 43%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 39%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 65%. The overall probability of zupj is 96%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28173, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 54%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 43%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 39%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 65%. The overall probability of zupj is 96%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28175, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 48%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 40%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 64%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28176, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 48%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 21%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 31%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28180, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 50%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 65%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 65%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 47%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of xyfo is 30%. For those who are yupt, the probability of xyfo is 39%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28182, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 46%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 54%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 58%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28183, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 46%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 29%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 27%.\nIs the chance of muvq larger when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28186, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 55%. For those who are not zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 87%. For those who are zupj and are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 61%. For those who are zupj and are yupt, the probability of muvq is 91%. The overall probability of zupj is 70%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28187, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 36%. For those who are not yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 68%. For those who are yupt and are not xyfo, the probability of muvq is 74%. For those who are yupt and are xyfo, the probability of muvq is 95%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of xyfo is 69%. For those who are yupt, the probability of xyfo is 75%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be more likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28188, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 72%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 58%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 90%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28189, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 72%. The probability of not yupt and muvq is 16%. The probability of yupt and muvq is 65%.\nIs the chance of muvq smaller when observing yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28194, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 12%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 68%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 34%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28198, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to zupj. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28199, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 90%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 17%.\nWill yupt increase the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28207, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28209, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 68%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 82%.\nWill yupt decrease the chance of muvq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28211, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 34%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 68%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 82%.\nIs muvq more likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28212, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nThe overall probability of yupt is 34%. For those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 68%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 82%.\nIs muvq less likely than not muvq overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28214, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nFor those who are not yupt, the probability of muvq is 12%. For those who are yupt, the probability of muvq is 22%.\nFor those who are yupt, would it be less likely to see muvq if the individual was not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28221, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28224, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zupj.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28231, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nMethod 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to zupj. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.\nTo understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 42%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 47%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28242, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 90%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 4%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 43%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28244, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 66%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 57%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28249, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 58%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 43%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28255, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 42%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 20%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 15%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28256, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to wibl. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28260, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 49%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 39%.\nDoes zuph positively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28263, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 37%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 31%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 15%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 37%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 31%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 15%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28266, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 50%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 27%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28270, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to wibl. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28276, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 83%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 6%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 33%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28278, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 85%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 87%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28280, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 76%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 85%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 87%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28281, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 76%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 85%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 87%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28282, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 76%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 20%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 66%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28290, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28293, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 47%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 71%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 71%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28299, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nFor those who are wibl, the correlation between zuph and uvzi is -0.50.\nIf we look at those who are wibl, does it mean that zuph does not affect uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28301, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to wibl. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28302, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28304, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nFor those who are wibl, the correlation between zuph and uvzi is -0.08.\nIf we look at those who are wibl, does it mean that zuph does not affect uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28308, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 69%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 54%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 54%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28309, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 69%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 69%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 44%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 68%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 42%.\nIf we look at those who are wibl, does the chance of uvzi increase when zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28310, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to wibl. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28312, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28313, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Uvzi has a direct effect on wibl.\nFor those who are wibl, the correlation between zuph and uvzi is -0.01.\nIf we look at those who are wibl, does it mean that zuph does not affect uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 32%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 46%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 17%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28319, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 32%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 46%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 17%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28320, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 80%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 56%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 88%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 44%. The overall probability of wibl is 77%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28322, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 43%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 85%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 45%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28323, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 43%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 48%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 19%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28325, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to wibl. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28328, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 73%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 66%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 27%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28331, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 27%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 76%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 61%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 50%. The overall probability of wibl is 97%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28336, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 45%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 2%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 33%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 27%. The overall probability of wibl is 61%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28339, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to wibl. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28342, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 11%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 40%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 93%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 5%. The overall probability of wibl is 76%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28343, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 11%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 40%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 93%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 5%. The overall probability of wibl is 76%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28350, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 24%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 70%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 75%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 97%. The overall probability of wibl is 85%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28351, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 17%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 69%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 89%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28354, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 18%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 81%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 3%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 32%. The overall probability of wibl is 0%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 23%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 64%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 100%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 23%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 37%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 99%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wibl, would zuph negatively affect uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28372, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 24%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 25%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28376, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 43%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 11%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 23%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 33%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 60%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 23%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wibl, would zuph positively affect uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28384, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 68%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 21%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 3%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28391, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28392, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 91%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 85%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28393, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 73%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 92%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 86%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 61%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 95%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 4%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wibl, would zuph negatively affect uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28394, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 86%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 91%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 85%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28402, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 62%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 58%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28405, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 62%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 60%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 44%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 59%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 12%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 90%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through wibl, would zuph positively affect uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28419, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 93%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 15%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 62%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 68%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 59%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 78%. The overall probability of zuph is 72%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28421, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 62%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 68%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 59%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 78%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 93%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 15%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28422, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 93%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 15%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 62%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 68%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 59%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 78%. The overall probability of zuph is 72%.\nDoes zuph positively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 72%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 68%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 62%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28424, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 72%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 19%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 45%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28425, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vubr.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 75%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 48%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 40%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 53%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 42%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 49%. The overall probability of zuph is 52%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28427, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 40%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 53%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 42%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 49%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 75%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 48%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28428, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 75%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 48%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 40%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 53%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 42%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 49%. The overall probability of zuph is 52%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28429, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 52%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 24%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 24%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28430, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28433, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 86%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 46%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 22%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 71%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 17%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 69%. The overall probability of zuph is 58%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28435, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 58%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 64%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 41%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28436, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vubr.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28439, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 48%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 55%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 48%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 55%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 19%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 95%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28440, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 19%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 95%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 48%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 55%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 48%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 55%. The overall probability of zuph is 3%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28441, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 3%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 50%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 55%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28443, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 1%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 24%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 72%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 88%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 57%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 85%. The overall probability of zuph is 93%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28444, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 1%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 24%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 72%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 88%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 57%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 85%. The overall probability of zuph is 93%.\nDoes zuph positively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28445, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 1%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 24%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 72%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 88%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 57%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 85%. The overall probability of zuph is 93%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28447, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 17%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 95%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 72%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 79%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 71%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 64%. The overall probability of zuph is 2%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28448, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 72%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 79%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 71%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 64%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 17%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 95%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28449, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 17%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 95%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 72%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 79%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 71%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 64%. The overall probability of zuph is 2%.\nDoes zuph positively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 2%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 71%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 2%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28452, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 2%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 71%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 2%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28454, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 74%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 40%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 30%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28455, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 50%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 75%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 49%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 23%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 55%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 12%. The overall probability of zuph is 75%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28456, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 50%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 75%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 49%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 23%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 55%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 12%. The overall probability of zuph is 75%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28457, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 50%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 75%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 49%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 23%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 55%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 12%. The overall probability of zuph is 75%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28458, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 75%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 36%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 23%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28462, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 53%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 74%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 77%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 53%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 35%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 41%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28465, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28466, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of wibl is 43%. For those who are zuph, the probability of wibl is 55%. For those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 59%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 12%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 61%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 11%. The overall probability of zuph is 39%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28469, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28475, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 25%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 26%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 4%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28481, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 48%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 20%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 24%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28482, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 48%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 20%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 24%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28485, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 55%. For those who are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 62%. For those who are not wibl, the probability of zuph is 44%. For those who are wibl, the probability of zuph is 23%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28490, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 31%. For those who are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 29%. For those who are not wibl, the probability of zuph is 5%. For those who are wibl, the probability of zuph is 28%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28495, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 74%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 76%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 34%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28497, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 82%. For those who are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 77%. For those who are not wibl, the probability of zuph is 81%. For those who are wibl, the probability of zuph is 34%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28499, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 75%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 19%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 63%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28511, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28517, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to wibl. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28531, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 72%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 9%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28541, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 65%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 18%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28545, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to wibl. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28550, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 61%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 76%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 59%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28553, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 22%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 30%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 32%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 60%. For those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of wibl is 45%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of wibl is 71%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of wibl is 20%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of wibl is 3%. The overall probability of vubr is 86%.\nDoes zuph positively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28554, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 22%. For those who are not zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 30%. For those who are zuph and are not wibl, the probability of uvzi is 32%. For those who are zuph and are wibl, the probability of uvzi is 60%. For those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of wibl is 45%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of wibl is 71%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of wibl is 20%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of wibl is 3%. The overall probability of vubr is 86%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect uvzi through wibl?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28559, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vubr.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28569, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28572, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 41%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 60%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 86%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28579, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 21%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 35%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 43%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28580, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28581, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vubr.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28582, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 60%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 33%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28586, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 25%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 20%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28587, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 25%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 20%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28589, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 25%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 20%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect uvzi through wibl and vubr?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28590, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 86%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 3%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 17%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 47%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 31%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28594, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 47%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 31%.\nDoes zuph positively affect uvzi through wibl and vubr?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 22%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 29%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 22%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 29%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28599, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28601, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 87%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 44%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 88%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 44%. The overall probability of wibl is 62%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28604, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 55%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 5%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 44%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28605, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vubr.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28606, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 47%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 60%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 25%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 52%. The overall probability of wibl is 1%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 70%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 16%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 68%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 49%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of vubr is 44%. For those who are zuph, the probability of vubr is 42%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28608, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 77%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 46%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 60%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28609, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 77%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 11%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 46%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 77%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 37%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 87%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 39%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of vubr is 63%. For those who are zuph, the probability of vubr is 63%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28614, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 61%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 83%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 61%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 83%. The overall probability of wibl is 94%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28615, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 67%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 61%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 83%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 63%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 23%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 41%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 61%. The overall probability of wibl is 69%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28619, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 16%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 38%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 4%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28622, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 32%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 87%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 22%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 62%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of vubr is 49%. For those who are zuph, the probability of vubr is 49%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28623, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to vubr.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28626, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 70%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 58%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 40%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28627, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with uvzi case by case according to vubr. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 53%. For those who are not wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 71%. For those who are wibl and are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 49%. For those who are wibl and are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 94%. The overall probability of wibl is 65%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28631, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 60%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 51%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 89%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 60%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 21%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 53%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28633, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 60%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 21%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 53%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28634, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 52%. For those who are not zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 6%. For those who are zuph and are not vubr, the probability of uvzi is 91%. For those who are zuph and are vubr, the probability of uvzi is 31%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of vubr is 46%. For those who are zuph, the probability of vubr is 41%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 46%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 17%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 30%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 61%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 89%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28643, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 29%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 43%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 26%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28644, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 87%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 44%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28651, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 15%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 82%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 13%.\nIs the chance of uvzi larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28653, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 76%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 37%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 39%.\nIs uvzi less likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28660, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 42%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 14%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 10%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28665, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 45%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 40%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of uvzi?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28667, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 45%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 40%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see uvzi if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28668, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 58%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of uvzi is 45%. For those who are zuph, the probability of uvzi is 40%.\nIs uvzi more likely than not uvzi overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28671, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with uvzi in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to wibl.\nTo understand how zuph affects uvzi, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28680, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 93%. The probability of not zuph and uvzi is 3%. The probability of zuph and uvzi is 5%.\nIs the chance of uvzi smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28681, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 87%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 38%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 87%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 38%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 44%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 57%.\nDoes pexu positively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28691, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 52%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 52%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 52%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 52%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 50%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 88%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 90%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 75%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28707, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28708, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 70%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 64%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28709, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 70%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 64%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28710, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 70%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 64%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28714, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 47%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 60%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28718, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 37%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 43%.\nDoes pexu positively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28721, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 46%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 20%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 20%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28726, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 36%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 46%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28727, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 36%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 46%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28728, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 36%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 46%.\nDoes pexu positively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28730, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 52%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 17%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 24%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28734, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nFor those who are hwax, the correlation between pexu and rukz is -0.06.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does it mean that pexu affects rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28738, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 54%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 0%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 13%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 14%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 10%.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does the chance of rukz decrease when pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28739, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 83%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 81%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 81%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28741, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 82%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 47%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 47%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28745, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28746, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nFor those who are hwax, the correlation between pexu and rukz is -0.02.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does it mean that pexu does not affect rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28749, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 98%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 57%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 57%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28759, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 96%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 71%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 71%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28765, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nFor those who are hwax, the correlation between pexu and rukz is -0.70.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does it mean that pexu affects rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28766, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Rukz has a direct effect on hwax.\nFor those who are hwax, the correlation between pexu and rukz is -0.70.\nIf we look at those who are hwax, does it mean that pexu does not affect rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 93%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 22%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 50%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 51%. The overall probability of hwax is 9%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28774, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 45%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 88%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 24%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 67%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 15%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 54%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28782, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 88%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 37%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 18%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 6%. The overall probability of hwax is 55%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28783, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 88%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 37%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 18%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 6%. The overall probability of hwax is 55%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 39%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 29%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 33%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28786, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28793, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 38%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 36%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 15%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28794, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28795, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 79%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 48%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 80%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 63%. The overall probability of hwax is 9%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28802, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 64%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 19%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 11%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28804, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 81%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 54%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 60%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 6%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 0%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 40%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would pexu positively affect rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28806, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 64%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 81%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 38%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28809, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 78%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 57%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28814, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 6%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 78%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 57%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28819, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 97%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 53%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 40%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 81%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 40%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 99%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28820, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 97%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 53%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 40%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 81%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 40%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 99%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would pexu positively affect rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28823, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 67%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 6%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 67%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 75%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 63%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 69%.\nDoes pexu positively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28824, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 67%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 6%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 67%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 75%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 63%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 69%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would pexu positively affect rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28831, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 59%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 61%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28832, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 37%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 42%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28836, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28837, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28840, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 54%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 84%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28841, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 62%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 33%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 57%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 89%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 29%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 84%.\nDoes pexu positively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28844, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 12%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 54%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 84%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28847, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 59%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 63%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28857, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 66%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 20%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 37%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28860, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 37%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 47%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 20%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28861, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 73%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 90%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 67%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 64%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 55%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 70%. The overall probability of pexu is 34%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28862, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 73%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 90%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 67%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 64%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 55%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 70%. The overall probability of pexu is 34%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28863, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 67%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 64%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 55%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 70%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 73%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 90%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 63%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 48%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 10%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 58%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 10%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 85%. The overall probability of pexu is 59%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28866, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 63%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 48%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 10%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 58%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 10%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 85%. The overall probability of pexu is 59%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28869, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 59%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 41%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 46%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28870, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 59%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 17%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 27%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28871, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 52%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 69%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 40%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 38%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 37%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 28%. The overall probability of pexu is 33%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28872, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 33%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 39%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 31%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28873, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 33%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 39%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 31%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28876, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28877, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 56%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 70%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 56%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 70%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 26%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 90%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28881, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28882, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 19%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 29%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 20%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 31%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 16%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 90%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28883, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 16%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 90%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 19%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 29%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 20%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 31%. The overall probability of pexu is 62%.\nDoes pexu positively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28885, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 62%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 8%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 18%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 93%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 96%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 89%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 77%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 92%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 79%. The overall probability of pexu is 68%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 89%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 77%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 92%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 79%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 93%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 96%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28888, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 68%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 78%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 79%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28890, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28892, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 16%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 24%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 49%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 40%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 54%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 43%. The overall probability of pexu is 8%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28893, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 8%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 48%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 51%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28895, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 61%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 62%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 80%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 60%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 76%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 40%. The overall probability of pexu is 39%.\nDoes pexu positively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28896, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 39%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 41%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 21%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28897, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28901, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of hwax is 43%. For those who are pexu, the probability of hwax is 92%. For those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 0%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 34%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 1%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 33%. The overall probability of pexu is 17%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28905, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 61%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 26%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 29%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28907, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28911, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 50%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 16%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 20%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28917, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 60%. For those who are hwax, the probability of rukz is 61%. For those who are not hwax, the probability of pexu is 43%. For those who are hwax, the probability of pexu is 67%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28918, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 66%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 66%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 67%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28919, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28920, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28924, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 28%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 84%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 56%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28927, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 67%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 20%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 47%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28931, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28932, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 35%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 41%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 20%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28935, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 35%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 23%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 29%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28940, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 40%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 50%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 59%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 7%. For those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 31%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 57%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 76%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 87%. The overall probability of kraz is 90%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would pexu negatively affect rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28943, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 76%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 64%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 73%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 36%. For those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 13%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 73%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 26%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 23%. The overall probability of kraz is 94%.\nDoes pexu positively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28944, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 76%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 64%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 73%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 36%. For those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 13%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 73%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 26%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 23%. The overall probability of kraz is 94%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would pexu positively affect rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28945, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 51%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 33%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 33%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28946, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 19%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 25%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28952, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 75%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 68%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28954, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 83%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 75%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 68%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28957, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 57%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 48%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 57%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 48%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28962, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 14%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 57%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 48%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28964, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28973, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 99%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 0%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 26%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28974, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to hwax.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28977, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 61%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 46%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 86%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 11%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 33%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 55%. For those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 34%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 36%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 58%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 82%. The overall probability of kraz is 8%.\nDoes pexu positively affect rukz through hwax?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28982, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 32%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 60%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28983, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 32%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 60%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 28986, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 1%. For those who are not pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 87%. For those who are pexu and are not hwax, the probability of rukz is 87%. For those who are pexu and are hwax, the probability of rukz is 15%. For those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 29%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 68%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of hwax is 27%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of hwax is 78%. The overall probability of kraz is 11%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through hwax, would pexu negatively affect rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 90%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 7%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 60%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 28998, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 40%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 47%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29000, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 40%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 47%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax and kraz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29005, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 51%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 43%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29011, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29013, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 68%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 49%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29021, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 74%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 56%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29023, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 74%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 56%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax and kraz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29025, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 72%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 21%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 41%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29029, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 38%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 33%.\nDoes pexu negatively affect rukz through hwax and kraz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29032, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 67%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 13%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 22%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 74%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 66%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29047, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 48%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 48%.\nDoes pexu positively affect rukz through hwax and kraz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29049, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 40%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 48%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 48%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29051, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 40%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 29%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 19%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29052, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 65%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 11%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 15%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29054, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 64%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 20%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 62%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29056, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 42%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 43%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 45%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 29%. The overall probability of hwax is 12%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29060, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29062, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 73%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 75%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 69%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 66%. The overall probability of hwax is 44%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29065, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29066, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 53%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 85%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 54%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 82%. The overall probability of hwax is 67%.\nWill pexu increase the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29067, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 61%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 52%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 49%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 89%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of kraz is 82%. For those who are pexu, the probability of kraz is 85%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29069, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 69%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 54%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 83%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29070, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 72%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 55%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 70%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 74%. The overall probability of hwax is 30%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29071, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 74%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 70%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 28%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 74%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of kraz is 94%. For those who are pexu, the probability of kraz is 65%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29072, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 82%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 70%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 58%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29073, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 82%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 13%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 47%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29074, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 82%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 13%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 47%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29075, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to kraz. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29078, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 43%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 34%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 29%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29080, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 84%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 71%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 27%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 11%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of kraz is 11%. For those who are pexu, the probability of kraz is 13%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29082, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 30%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 83%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 25%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29083, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 30%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 58%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 7%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to kraz.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29085, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 63%. For those who are not hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 25%. For those who are hwax and are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 54%. For those who are hwax and are pexu, the probability of rukz is 37%. The overall probability of hwax is 96%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29087, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 25%. For those who are not pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 65%. For those who are pexu and are not kraz, the probability of rukz is 73%. For those who are pexu and are kraz, the probability of rukz is 24%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of kraz is 73%. For those who are pexu, the probability of kraz is 74%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29089, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 29%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 54%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 36%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29090, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 36%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 79%.\nWill pexu decrease the chance of rukz?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29093, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 0%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 36%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 79%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29094, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 0%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 36%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 79%.\nIs rukz less likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29096, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 90%. For those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 51%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 40%.\nIs rukz more likely than not rukz overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29105, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 69%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 41%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29109, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 9%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 18%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be less likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29110, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29113, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 29%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 65%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29123, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nFor those who are not pexu, the probability of rukz is 70%. For those who are pexu, the probability of rukz is 32%.\nFor those who are pexu, would it be more likely to see rukz if the individual was not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29128, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 13%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 58%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 6%.\nIs the chance of rukz smaller when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nMethod 1: We look at how pexu correlates with rukz case by case according to hwax. Method 2: We look directly at how pexu correlates with rukz in general.\nTo understand how pexu affects rukz, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29131, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nThe overall probability of pexu is 18%. The probability of not pexu and rukz is 17%. The probability of pexu and rukz is 10%.\nIs the chance of rukz larger when observing pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29133, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 51%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 56%.\nDoes zuph positively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29134, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 94%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 51%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 56%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29136, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 94%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 3%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 52%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29145, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 20%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 26%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29147, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 20%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 26%.\nDoes zuph positively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29148, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 20%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 26%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29151, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 58%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 17%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29152, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 58%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 17%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29153, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 47%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 58%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 17%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29159, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to jyka. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29162, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 21%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 28%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29171, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29175, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 10%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 10%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29179, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 98%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 0%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 10%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29181, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29185, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 9%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 24%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 24%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29186, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 9%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 25%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 15%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 49%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 14%.\nIf we look at those who are jyka, does the chance of glimx increase when zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29187, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 9%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 25%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 15%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 49%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 14%.\nIf we look at those who are jyka, does the chance of glimx decrease when zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29191, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 59%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 7%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 7%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29192, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 59%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 7%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 7%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29195, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nFor those who are jyka, the correlation between zuph and glimx is 0.07.\nIf we look at those who are jyka, does it mean that zuph affects glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29196, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to jyka. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29198, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 91%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 80%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 58%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 78%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 52%.\nIf we look at those who are jyka, does the chance of glimx increase when zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29199, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29202, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 87%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 45%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 45%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29203, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to jyka. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29205, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Glimx has a direct effect on jyka.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 87%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 18%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 83%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 39%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 55%.\nIf we look at those who are jyka, does the chance of glimx decrease when zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29212, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 82%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 12%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 60%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29213, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 68%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 23%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 52%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 55%. The overall probability of jyka is 25%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29215, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 68%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 23%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 52%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 55%. The overall probability of jyka is 25%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 0%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 24%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 39%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 95%. The overall probability of jyka is 4%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29219, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 0%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 24%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 39%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 95%. The overall probability of jyka is 4%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29221, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 6%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 2%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 34%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29224, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to jyka. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29227, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 95%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 100%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 32%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 62%. The overall probability of jyka is 55%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29241, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to jyka. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29243, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 38%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 28%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 37%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29246, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 72%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 3%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 41%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29247, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 32%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 27%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29253, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 74%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 32%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 27%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29256, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29258, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 81%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 35%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29263, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 1%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 40%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 5%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 53%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 49%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 77%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through jyka, would zuph negatively affect glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29266, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 97%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 1%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 40%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29267, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29274, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 82%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 37%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 29%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 82%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 7%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 24%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29276, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29284, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 37%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 31%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29285, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 37%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 31%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29299, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to jyka. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29300, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29301, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 59%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 41%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29302, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 50%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 94%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 25%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 69%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 20%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 36%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29303, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 99%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 0%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 41%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29306, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 40%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 20%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 13%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 78%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 41%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 85%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29309, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29310, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 46%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 40%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 14%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 23%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 20%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 21%. The overall probability of zuph is 25%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29313, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to zory. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 40%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 32%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 30%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 38%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 24%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 51%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29316, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 40%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 32%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 30%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 38%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 24%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 51%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29317, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 24%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 51%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 40%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 32%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 30%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 38%. The overall probability of zuph is 38%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29320, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29322, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 34%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 51%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 25%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 42%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 6%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 57%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29325, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 72%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 35%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 34%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29327, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29330, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 17%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 64%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 76%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 68%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 68%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 42%. The overall probability of zuph is 60%.\nDoes zuph positively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 60%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 74%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 52%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29333, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to zory. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29335, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 69%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 21%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 43%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29336, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 53%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 44%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 88%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 41%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 71%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 6%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29337, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 71%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 6%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 53%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 44%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 88%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 41%. The overall probability of zuph is 36%.\nDoes zuph positively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29338, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 36%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 30%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 31%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29340, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 96%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 73%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 31%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29341, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 96%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 3%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 30%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29342, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 96%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 3%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 30%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29344, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 8%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 24%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 35%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 54%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 35%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 54%. The overall probability of zuph is 11%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29345, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 35%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 54%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 35%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 54%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 8%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 24%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 11%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 36%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 39%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29349, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 11%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 33%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 4%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29350, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to zory. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29352, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 62%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 11%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 40%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29353, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29354, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to zory. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29355, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 89%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 17%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 72%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 59%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 84%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 62%. The overall probability of zuph is 28%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29356, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 72%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 59%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 84%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 62%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 89%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 17%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29357, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of jyka is 89%. For those who are zuph, the probability of jyka is 17%. For those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 72%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 59%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 84%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 62%. The overall probability of zuph is 28%.\nDoes zuph positively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 28%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 60%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 81%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29360, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29361, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to zory. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 35%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 14%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 12%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29370, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29374, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 54%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 45%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 80%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29386, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 73%. For those who are jyka, the probability of glimx is 73%. For those who are not jyka, the probability of zuph is 62%. For those who are jyka, the probability of zuph is 70%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29393, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 31%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 6%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 13%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29399, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 53%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 51%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 4%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 48%. For those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 15%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 72%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 16%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 9%. The overall probability of zory is 90%.\nIf we disregard the mediation effect through jyka, would zuph positively affect glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29407, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29408, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 90%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 42%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29411, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 91%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 68%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 36%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 57%. For those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 18%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 10%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 44%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 30%. The overall probability of zory is 77%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29413, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 47%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 47%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 20%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29416, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 21%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 55%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29417, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 21%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 18%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 37%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 78%. For those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 28%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 69%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 41%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 47%. The overall probability of zory is 18%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29425, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 71%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 61%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 66%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 71%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 61%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 66%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29429, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 47%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 45%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29431, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 42%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 75%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 33%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 49%. For those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 75%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 30%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 63%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 16%. The overall probability of zory is 40%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29434, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to jyka.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29438, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 91%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 33%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29446, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 50%. For those who are not zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 18%. For those who are zuph and are not jyka, the probability of glimx is 59%. For those who are zuph and are jyka, the probability of glimx is 7%. For those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 29%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 95%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of jyka is 10%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of jyka is 76%. The overall probability of zory is 75%.\nDoes zuph positively affect glimx through jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29452, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 58%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 33%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29459, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 32%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 19%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29461, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 73%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 32%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 19%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 76%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 25%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29465, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 72%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 76%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 25%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29466, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 72%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 21%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 18%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29468, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29470, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 27%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 47%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29473, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 27%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 47%.\nDoes zuph negatively affect glimx through jyka and zory?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29475, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 12%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 24%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 6%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29477, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 38%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 40%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29480, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 81%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 7%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 32%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29481, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29486, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 64%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 71%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 44%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29492, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 51%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 27%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 34%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29494, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 20%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 6%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29501, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 19%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 43%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29502, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 84%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 19%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 43%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29503, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 77%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 5%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 8%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 29%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 17%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 14%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29504, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 82%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 65%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 11%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29505, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 80%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 97%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 87%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 83%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 97%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 97%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29506, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 34%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 64%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 28%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29507, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to zory. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 51%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 94%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 63%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 94%. The overall probability of jyka is 38%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29509, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 77%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 61%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 94%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29513, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 21%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 68%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 22%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 2%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 31%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 34%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29515, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 55%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 16%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 8%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29516, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to zory. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29517, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 52%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 72%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 39%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 79%. The overall probability of jyka is 32%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29518, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 79%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 41%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 73%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29519, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 79%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 41%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 73%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29520, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 79%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 9%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 58%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29522, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to zory. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29525, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29526, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to zory. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29527, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 41%. For those who are not jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 98%. For those who are jyka and are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 42%. For those who are jyka and are zuph, the probability of glimx is 92%. The overall probability of jyka is 9%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29529, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 17%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 41%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 98%.\nIs glimx more likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29531, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 17%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 34%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 17%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29532, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29534, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 3%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 90%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 9%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 72%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 72%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 72%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29535, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 3%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 90%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 9%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 72%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 72%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 72%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be less likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29537, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 89%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 66%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 55%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29538, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 89%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 7%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 49%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29540, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 41%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 30%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 28%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29541, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to zory.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29543, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 82%. For those who are not zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 8%. For those who are zuph and are not zory, the probability of glimx is 60%. For those who are zuph and are zory, the probability of glimx is 54%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of zory is 54%. For those who are zuph, the probability of zory is 47%.\nFor those who are zuph, would it be more likely to see glimx if the individual was not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29544, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 72%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 41%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 57%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29546, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 43%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 43%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 26%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29552, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 36%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 74%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29561, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 23%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 17%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 7%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 46%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 70%.\nWill zuph decrease the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29565, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 98%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 1%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 69%.\nIs the chance of glimx larger when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29566, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 98%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 1%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 69%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29569, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nMethod 1: We look at how zuph correlates with glimx case by case according to jyka. Method 2: We look directly at how zuph correlates with glimx in general.\nTo understand how zuph affects glimx, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29570, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nFor those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 51%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 94%.\nWill zuph increase the chance of glimx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29571, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 74%. For those who are not zuph, the probability of glimx is 51%. For those who are zuph, the probability of glimx is 94%.\nIs glimx less likely than not glimx overall?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29577, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nThe overall probability of zuph is 10%. The probability of not zuph and glimx is 49%. The probability of zuph and glimx is 7%.\nIs the chance of glimx smaller when observing zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph, and we know that zuph causes not xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph, and we know that zuph causes not xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29586, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph, and we know that zuph causes not xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29587, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph, and we know that zuph causes not xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29588, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes not zuph, and we know that zuph causes not xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29590, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes not zuph, and we know that zuph causes not xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29591, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes not zuph, and we know that zuph causes not xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29592, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph, and we know that zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29593, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph, and we know that zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29594, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph, and we know that zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes not zuph, and we know that zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes not zuph, and we know that zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29599, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes not zuph, and we know that zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29600, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes rixq. zuph or rixq causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29604, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes rixq. zuph and rixq causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29605, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes rixq. zuph and rixq causes xevu. We observed an individual is zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes rixq. zuph and rixq causes xevu. We observed an individual is zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29608, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes not rixq. zuph or rixq causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29609, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes not rixq. zuph or rixq causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29612, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes not rixq. zuph and rixq causes xevu. We observed an individual is zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29615, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes not rixq. zuph and rixq causes xevu. We observed an individual is zuph.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29616, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes not zuph. rixq or zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29617, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes not zuph. rixq or zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29622, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph. rixq or zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29623, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph. rixq or zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29624, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph. rixq and zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29625, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph. rixq and zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29626, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph. rixq and zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29630, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes not zuph. rixq and zuph causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29632, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy causes rixq. rixq causes not zuph. swoy or zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is not swoy.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29633, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy causes rixq. rixq causes not zuph. swoy or zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29634, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy causes rixq. rixq causes not zuph. swoy or zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is swoy.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29635, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy causes rixq. rixq causes not zuph. swoy or zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29636, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy causes rixq. rixq causes not zuph. swoy and zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is not swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29637, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy causes rixq. rixq causes not zuph. swoy and zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is swoy.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29639, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy causes rixq. rixq causes zuph. swoy or zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is not swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy causes rixq. rixq causes zuph. swoy or zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is not swoy.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29641, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy causes rixq. rixq causes zuph. swoy or zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29642, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy causes rixq. rixq causes zuph. swoy or zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is swoy.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29643, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy causes rixq. rixq causes zuph. swoy or zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29645, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy causes rixq. rixq causes zuph. swoy and zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is not swoy.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29646, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Rixq has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy causes rixq. rixq causes zuph. swoy and zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is swoy.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29649, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy and zuph causes rixq. swoy or rixq causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph and an individual is not swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29653, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy and zuph causes rixq. swoy or rixq causes xevu. We observed an individual is zuph and an individual is not swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29659, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy and zuph causes rixq. swoy and rixq causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph and an individual is not swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29660, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy and zuph causes rixq. swoy and rixq causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph and an individual is swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29661, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoy has a direct effect on rixq and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that swoy and zuph causes rixq. swoy and rixq causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph and an individual is swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29664, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that rixq or swoy causes zuph. rixq or swoy or zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is not swoy.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29666, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that rixq or swoy causes zuph. rixq or swoy or zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is swoy.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29667, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that rixq or swoy causes zuph. rixq and swoy and zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is not swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29669, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that rixq or swoy causes zuph. rixq and swoy and zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is not swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29671, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that rixq or swoy causes zuph. rixq and swoy and zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29674, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that rixq and swoy causes zuph. rixq and swoy and zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is not swoy.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29675, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on zuph and xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy is unobserved.\nWe know that rixq and swoy causes zuph. rixq and swoy and zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is not swoy.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29680, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph and swoy. zuph and swoy causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29681, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph and swoy. zuph and swoy causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29682, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph and swoy. zuph and swoy causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29683, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph and swoy. zuph and swoy causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph and not swoy. zuph and swoy causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29687, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph and not swoy. zuph and swoy causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29689, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph and swoy. zuph or swoy causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29690, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph and swoy. zuph or swoy causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29691, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph and swoy. zuph or swoy causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29692, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph and not swoy. zuph or swoy causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29693, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph and not swoy. zuph or swoy causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29694, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph and not swoy. zuph or swoy causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29695, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on swoy and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq causes zuph and not swoy. zuph or swoy causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes not rixq and swoy. rixq or swoy causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29698, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes not rixq and swoy. rixq or swoy causes xevu. We observed an individual is zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29699, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes not rixq and swoy. rixq or swoy causes xevu. We observed an individual is zuph.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes not rixq and swoy. rixq and swoy causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29701, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes not rixq and swoy. rixq and swoy causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29702, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes not rixq and swoy. rixq and swoy causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29703, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes not rixq and swoy. rixq and swoy causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29704, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes not rixq and swoy. rixq and swoy causes xevu. We observed an individual is zuph.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29705, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes rixq and swoy. rixq or swoy causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29707, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes rixq and swoy. rixq and swoy causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29711, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on swoy and rixq. Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Swoy has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that zuph causes rixq and swoy. rixq and swoy causes xevu. We observed an individual is zuph.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29718, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq or zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29719, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq or zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is zuph.\nWould an individual is not xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29721, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq and zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29722, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq and zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is not zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if rixq instead of not rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29724, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq and zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is zuph.\nWould an individual is xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29725, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Rixq has a direct effect on xevu. Zuph has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that rixq and zuph causes xevu. We observed an individual is zuph.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not rixq instead of rixq?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29728, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq, and we know that swoq causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29731, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq, and we know that swoq causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29733, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq, and we know that swoq causes not kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29734, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq, and we know that swoq causes not kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes not swoq, and we know that swoq causes not kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29738, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes not swoq, and we know that swoq causes not kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29739, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes not swoq, and we know that swoq causes not kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29741, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes not swoq, and we know that swoq causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29742, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes not swoq, and we know that swoq causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29746, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes kwox. swoq or kwox causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29748, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes kwox. swoq or kwox causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29749, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes kwox. swoq or kwox causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29750, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes not kwox. swoq and kwox causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29751, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes not kwox. swoq and kwox causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29754, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes kwox. swoq and kwox causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not swoq.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29756, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes kwox. swoq and kwox causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29758, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes not kwox. swoq or kwox causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29763, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes not swoq. kwox and swoq causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29768, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes not swoq. kwox or swoq causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29769, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes not swoq. kwox or swoq causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29770, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes not swoq. kwox or swoq causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29771, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes not swoq. kwox or swoq causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29774, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq. kwox and swoq causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29775, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq. kwox and swoq causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29776, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy causes kwox. kwox causes swoq. muvy and swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29777, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy causes kwox. kwox causes swoq. muvy and swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is muvy.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29779, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy causes kwox. kwox causes swoq. muvy and swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is muvy.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29780, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy causes kwox. kwox causes not swoq. muvy or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29782, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy causes kwox. kwox causes not swoq. muvy or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy causes kwox. kwox causes swoq. muvy or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29785, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy causes kwox. kwox causes swoq. muvy or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29786, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy causes kwox. kwox causes swoq. muvy or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29787, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy causes kwox. kwox causes swoq. muvy or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29790, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy causes kwox. kwox causes not swoq. muvy and swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is muvy.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29791, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Kwox has a direct effect on swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy causes kwox. kwox causes not swoq. muvy and swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is muvy.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy or swoq causes kwox. muvy and kwox causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq and an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29800, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy or swoq causes kwox. muvy or kwox causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq and an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29801, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy or swoq causes kwox. muvy or kwox causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq and an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29803, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy and swoq causes kwox. muvy or kwox causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not swoq and an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29805, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Muvy has a direct effect on kwox and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that muvy and swoq causes kwox. muvy or kwox causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq and an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29810, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that kwox and muvy causes swoq. kwox or muvy or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is muvy.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29812, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that kwox or muvy causes swoq. kwox and muvy and swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is muvy.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29816, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that kwox and muvy causes swoq. kwox and muvy and swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29818, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that kwox and muvy causes swoq. kwox and muvy and swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is muvy.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29822, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that kwox or muvy causes swoq. kwox or muvy or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not muvy.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29823, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on swoq and kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy is unobserved.\nWe know that kwox or muvy causes swoq. kwox or muvy or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is muvy.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29824, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and not muvy. swoq or muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29825, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and not muvy. swoq or muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29826, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and not muvy. swoq or muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29827, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and not muvy. swoq or muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29828, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and muvy. swoq and muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29830, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and muvy. swoq and muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29832, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and not muvy. swoq and muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29833, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and not muvy. swoq and muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29834, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and not muvy. swoq and muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29835, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and not muvy. swoq and muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29836, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and muvy. swoq or muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29837, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and muvy. swoq or muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29838, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and muvy. swoq or muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29839, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on muvy and swoq. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox causes swoq and muvy. swoq or muvy causes kwoz.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29841, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes kwox and muvy. kwox or muvy causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29843, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes kwox and muvy. kwox and muvy causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29844, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes kwox and muvy. kwox and muvy causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29846, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes kwox and muvy. kwox and muvy causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29847, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes not kwox and muvy. kwox and muvy causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29848, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes not kwox and muvy. kwox and muvy causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29852, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes not kwox and muvy. kwox or muvy causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29853, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes not kwox and muvy. kwox or muvy causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29854, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes not kwox and muvy. kwox or muvy causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29855, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Swoq has a direct effect on muvy and kwox. Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Muvy has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that swoq causes not kwox and muvy. kwox or muvy causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29856, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not swoq.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29857, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29859, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29861, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29863, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox or swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29865, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox and swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is not swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29868, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox and swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is kwoz if not kwox instead of kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29871, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kwox has a direct effect on kwoz. Swoq has a direct effect on kwoz.\nWe know that kwox and swoq causes kwoz. We observed an individual is swoq.\nWould an individual is not kwoz if kwox instead of not kwox?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29872, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes not tijv, and we know that tijv causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29873, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes not tijv, and we know that tijv causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29874, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes not tijv, and we know that tijv causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29875, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes not tijv, and we know that tijv causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29877, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv, and we know that tijv causes not gyzp.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29878, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv, and we know that tijv causes not gyzp.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29879, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv, and we know that tijv causes not gyzp.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv, and we know that tijv causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29882, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv, and we know that tijv causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29883, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv, and we know that tijv causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29884, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes not tijv, and we know that tijv causes not gyzp.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29886, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes not tijv, and we know that tijv causes not gyzp.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29888, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes not xevo. tijv and xevo causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29894, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes xevo. tijv and xevo causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29896, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes not xevo. tijv or xevo causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29911, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes not tijv. xevo and tijv causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29913, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv. xevo or tijv causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29914, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv. xevo or tijv causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29917, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes not tijv. xevo or tijv causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29920, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw causes xevo. xevo causes not tijv. tijw and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijw.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29923, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw causes xevo. xevo causes not tijv. tijw and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijw.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29925, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw causes xevo. xevo causes not tijv. tijw or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijw.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29926, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw causes xevo. xevo causes not tijv. tijw or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijw.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29927, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw causes xevo. xevo causes tijv. tijw and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijw.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29928, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw causes xevo. xevo causes tijv. tijw and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijw.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29929, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw causes xevo. xevo causes tijv. tijw and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijw.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29930, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw causes xevo. xevo causes tijv. tijw and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijw.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29931, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw causes xevo. xevo causes tijv. tijw and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijw.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29932, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw causes xevo. xevo causes tijv. tijw or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijw.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29933, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw causes xevo. xevo causes tijv. tijw or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijw.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw causes xevo. xevo causes tijv. tijw or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijw.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29935, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Xevo has a direct effect on tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw causes xevo. xevo causes tijv. tijw or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijw.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29936, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw or tijv causes xevo. tijw or xevo causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv and an individual is not tijw.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29938, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw or tijv causes xevo. tijw or xevo causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv and an individual is tijw.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29942, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw or tijv causes xevo. tijw or xevo causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv and an individual is tijw.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29949, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijw has a direct effect on xevo and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that tijw and tijv causes xevo. tijw and xevo causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv and an individual is tijw.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29953, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that xevo and tijw causes tijv. xevo or tijw or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijw.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that xevo and tijw causes tijv. xevo and tijw and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijw.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29962, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that xevo or tijw causes tijv. xevo or tijw or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijw.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29964, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on tijv and gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw is unobserved.\nWe know that xevo or tijw causes tijv. xevo or tijw or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijw.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29968, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv and not tijw. tijv or tijw causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv and not tijw. tijv or tijw causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29972, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv and not tijw. tijv and tijw causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29973, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv and not tijw. tijv and tijw causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29979, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv and tijw. tijv or tijw causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29980, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv and tijw. tijv and tijw causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv and tijw. tijv and tijw causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29982, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on tijw and tijv. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo causes tijv and tijw. tijv and tijw causes gyzp.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29984, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes not xevo and tijw. xevo or tijw causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29985, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes not xevo and tijw. xevo or tijw causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29986, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes not xevo and tijw. xevo or tijw causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29988, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes xevo and tijw. xevo and tijw causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29990, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes xevo and tijw. xevo and tijw causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29993, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes xevo and tijw. xevo or tijw causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes xevo and tijw. xevo or tijw causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 29995, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes not xevo and tijw. xevo and tijw causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29996, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes not xevo and tijw. xevo and tijw causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29997, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes not xevo and tijw. xevo and tijw causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 29998, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Tijv has a direct effect on tijw and xevo. Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijw has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that tijv causes not xevo and tijw. xevo and tijw causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30000, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30001, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30002, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30004, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30005, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30006, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo or tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30008, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30009, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is not tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30012, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30013, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv.\nWould an individual is not gyzp if not xevo instead of xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30014, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xevo has a direct effect on gyzp. Tijv has a direct effect on gyzp.\nWe know that xevo and tijv causes gyzp. We observed an individual is tijv.\nWould an individual is gyzp if xevo instead of not xevo?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30020, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet, and we know that gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30021, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet, and we know that gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30022, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet, and we know that gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30023, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet, and we know that gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30024, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes not gwet, and we know that gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30032, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes not yomx. gwet and yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet.\nWould an individual is not xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30033, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes not yomx. gwet and yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30039, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes not yomx. gwet or yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30041, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes yomx. gwet and yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30042, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes yomx. gwet and yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30043, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes yomx. gwet and yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30046, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes yomx. gwet or yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30049, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes not gwet. yomx and gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30050, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes not gwet. yomx and gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30051, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes not gwet. yomx and gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30053, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes not gwet. yomx or gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30056, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet. yomx and gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30057, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet. yomx and gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30058, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet. yomx and gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30060, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet. yomx or gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30061, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet. yomx or gwet causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30065, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi causes yomx. yomx causes gwet. cwoi or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is not cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30066, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi causes yomx. yomx causes gwet. cwoi or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30067, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi causes yomx. yomx causes gwet. cwoi or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is cwoi.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30068, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi causes yomx. yomx causes gwet. cwoi or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30069, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi causes yomx. yomx causes gwet. cwoi and gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is not cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30070, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi causes yomx. yomx causes gwet. cwoi and gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is not cwoi.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30073, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi causes yomx. yomx causes not gwet. cwoi and gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30074, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi causes yomx. yomx causes not gwet. cwoi and gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is cwoi.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30075, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi causes yomx. yomx causes not gwet. cwoi and gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30077, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi causes yomx. yomx causes not gwet. cwoi or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is not cwoi.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30078, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi causes yomx. yomx causes not gwet. cwoi or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is cwoi.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30079, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Yomx has a direct effect on gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi causes yomx. yomx causes not gwet. cwoi or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is cwoi.\nWould an individual is not xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30083, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi and gwet causes yomx. cwoi or yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet and an individual is not cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30084, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi and gwet causes yomx. cwoi or yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet and an individual is cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30088, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi or gwet causes yomx. cwoi and yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet and an individual is not cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30090, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi or gwet causes yomx. cwoi and yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet and an individual is not cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30092, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi or gwet causes yomx. cwoi and yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet and an individual is cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30094, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi or gwet causes yomx. cwoi or yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet and an individual is not cwoi.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30095, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Cwoi has a direct effect on yomx and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that cwoi or gwet causes yomx. cwoi or yomx causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet and an individual is not cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30098, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that yomx and cwoi causes gwet. yomx and cwoi and gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30099, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that yomx or cwoi causes gwet. yomx or cwoi or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is not cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30102, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that yomx or cwoi causes gwet. yomx or cwoi or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is cwoi.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30110, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on gwet and xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi is unobserved.\nWe know that yomx and cwoi causes gwet. yomx or cwoi or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is cwoi.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30115, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet and not cwoi. gwet or cwoi causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30116, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet and cwoi. gwet and cwoi causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30118, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet and cwoi. gwet and cwoi causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30121, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet and cwoi. gwet or cwoi causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30122, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet and cwoi. gwet or cwoi causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30123, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet and cwoi. gwet or cwoi causes xevu.\nWould an individual is not xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30124, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on cwoi and gwet. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx causes gwet and not cwoi. gwet and cwoi causes xevu.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30128, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes yomx and cwoi. yomx and cwoi causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30129, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes yomx and cwoi. yomx and cwoi causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30131, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes yomx and cwoi. yomx and cwoi causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30132, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes not yomx and cwoi. yomx or cwoi causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30133, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes not yomx and cwoi. yomx or cwoi causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30135, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes yomx and cwoi. yomx or cwoi causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30137, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes yomx and cwoi. yomx or cwoi causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30139, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes yomx and cwoi. yomx or cwoi causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30140, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes yomx and cwoi. yomx or cwoi causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is not xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30142, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes not yomx and cwoi. yomx and cwoi causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30143, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gwet has a direct effect on cwoi and yomx. Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Cwoi has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that gwet causes not yomx and cwoi. yomx and cwoi causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30144, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx and gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30145, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx and gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30147, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx and gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet.\nWould an individual is not xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30149, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx and gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is not xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30151, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx and gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is not xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30152, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30155, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is not gwet.\nWould an individual is not xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30156, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if not yomx instead of yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30158, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yomx has a direct effect on xevu. Gwet has a direct effect on xevu.\nWe know that yomx or gwet causes xevu. We observed an individual is gwet.\nWould an individual is xevu if yomx instead of not yomx?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30160, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes not hwax, and we know that hwax causes not lirg.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30164, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax, and we know that hwax causes lirg.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30165, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax, and we know that hwax causes lirg.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30167, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax, and we know that hwax causes lirg.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30169, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax, and we know that hwax causes not lirg.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30174, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes not hwax, and we know that hwax causes lirg.\nWould an individual is lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30175, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes not hwax, and we know that hwax causes lirg.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30183, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that hwax causes jyka. hwax and jyka causes lirg. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30184, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that hwax causes not jyka. hwax and jyka causes lirg. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30187, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that hwax causes jyka. hwax or jyka causes lirg. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30188, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that hwax causes jyka. hwax or jyka causes lirg. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30189, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that hwax causes jyka. hwax or jyka causes lirg. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30192, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax. jyka or hwax causes lirg.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30193, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax. jyka or hwax causes lirg.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30195, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax. jyka or hwax causes lirg.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30198, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes not hwax. jyka and hwax causes lirg.\nWould an individual is lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30199, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes not hwax. jyka and hwax causes lirg.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30200, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax. jyka and hwax causes lirg.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30209, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp causes jyka. jyka causes hwax. gyzp and hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not gyzp.\nWould an individual is lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30210, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp causes jyka. jyka causes hwax. gyzp and hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not gyzp.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30211, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp causes jyka. jyka causes hwax. gyzp and hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is gyzp.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30212, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp causes jyka. jyka causes hwax. gyzp or hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not gyzp.\nWould an individual is lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30216, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp causes jyka. jyka causes not hwax. gyzp and hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not gyzp.\nWould an individual is lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30217, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp causes jyka. jyka causes not hwax. gyzp and hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not gyzp.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30218, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp causes jyka. jyka causes not hwax. gyzp and hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is gyzp.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30219, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp causes jyka. jyka causes not hwax. gyzp and hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is gyzp.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30220, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp causes jyka. jyka causes not hwax. gyzp or hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not gyzp.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30221, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp causes jyka. jyka causes not hwax. gyzp or hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is gyzp.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30222, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp causes jyka. jyka causes not hwax. gyzp or hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is gyzp.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30223, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Jyka has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp causes jyka. jyka causes not hwax. gyzp or hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is gyzp.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30228, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp and hwax causes jyka. gyzp and jyka causes lirg. We observed an individual is not hwax and an individual is gyzp.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30232, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp and hwax causes jyka. gyzp or jyka causes lirg. We observed an individual is not hwax and an individual is not gyzp.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30235, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp and hwax causes jyka. gyzp or jyka causes lirg. We observed an individual is hwax and an individual is not gyzp.\nWould an individual is lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30236, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Gyzp has a direct effect on jyka and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that gyzp and hwax causes jyka. gyzp or jyka causes lirg. We observed an individual is hwax and an individual is gyzp.\nWould an individual is lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30244, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that jyka or gyzp causes hwax. jyka or gyzp or hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not gyzp.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30250, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that jyka or gyzp causes hwax. jyka and gyzp and hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not gyzp.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30253, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on hwax and lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp is unobserved.\nWe know that jyka or gyzp causes hwax. jyka and gyzp and hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is gyzp.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30256, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax and not gyzp. hwax and gyzp causes lirg.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30257, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax and not gyzp. hwax and gyzp causes lirg.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30262, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax and gyzp. hwax or gyzp causes lirg.\nWould an individual is lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30263, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax and gyzp. hwax or gyzp causes lirg.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30264, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax and not gyzp. hwax or gyzp causes lirg.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30267, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax and not gyzp. hwax or gyzp causes lirg.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30269, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax and gyzp. hwax and gyzp causes lirg.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30270, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on gyzp and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka causes hwax and gyzp. hwax and gyzp causes lirg.\nWould an individual is lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30273, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that hwax causes not jyka and gyzp. jyka and gyzp causes lirg. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30274, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that hwax causes not jyka and gyzp. jyka and gyzp causes lirg. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30275, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that hwax causes not jyka and gyzp. jyka and gyzp causes lirg. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30276, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that hwax causes jyka and gyzp. jyka or gyzp causes lirg. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30279, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that hwax causes jyka and gyzp. jyka or gyzp causes lirg. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30281, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that hwax causes jyka and gyzp. jyka and gyzp causes lirg. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30285, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on gyzp and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Gyzp has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that hwax causes not jyka and gyzp. jyka or gyzp causes lirg. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30289, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka and hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30290, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka and hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30291, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka and hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30295, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka and hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30297, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka or hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30298, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka or hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30299, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka or hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is not lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30301, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka or hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is not lirg if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30302, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on lirg. Hwax has a direct effect on lirg.\nWe know that jyka or hwax causes lirg. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is lirg if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30304, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes not yupt, and we know that yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30306, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes not yupt, and we know that yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30307, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes not yupt, and we know that yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30308, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes not yupt, and we know that yupt causes not kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30310, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes not yupt, and we know that yupt causes not kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30312, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt, and we know that yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30314, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt, and we know that yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30315, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt, and we know that yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30316, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt, and we know that yupt causes not kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30318, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt, and we know that yupt causes not kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30321, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes not jyka. yupt or jyka causes kwox. We observed an individual is not yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30326, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes jyka. yupt and jyka causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30328, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes jyka. yupt and jyka causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30332, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes not jyka. yupt and jyka causes kwox. We observed an individual is not yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30335, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes not jyka. yupt and jyka causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30336, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes not yupt. jyka or yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30339, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes not yupt. jyka or yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30342, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes not yupt. jyka and yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30343, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes not yupt. jyka and yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30344, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt. jyka or yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30345, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt. jyka or yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30346, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt. jyka or yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30347, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt. jyka or yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30348, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt. jyka and yupt causes kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30352, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu causes jyka. jyka causes yupt. qwiu and yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not qwiu.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30353, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu causes jyka. jyka causes yupt. qwiu and yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not qwiu.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30354, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu causes jyka. jyka causes yupt. qwiu and yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not qwiu.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30356, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu causes jyka. jyka causes yupt. qwiu and yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is qwiu.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30357, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu causes jyka. jyka causes yupt. qwiu and yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is qwiu.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30358, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu causes jyka. jyka causes not yupt. qwiu or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not qwiu.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30359, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu causes jyka. jyka causes not yupt. qwiu or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not qwiu.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30360, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu causes jyka. jyka causes not yupt. qwiu or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is qwiu.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30361, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu causes jyka. jyka causes not yupt. qwiu or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is qwiu.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30362, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu causes jyka. jyka causes yupt. qwiu or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not qwiu.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30363, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu causes jyka. jyka causes yupt. qwiu or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not qwiu.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30364, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Jyka has a direct effect on yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu causes jyka. jyka causes yupt. qwiu or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is qwiu.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30375, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu or yupt causes jyka. qwiu and jyka causes kwox. We observed an individual is not yupt and an individual is not qwiu.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30376, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu or yupt causes jyka. qwiu and jyka causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt and an individual is qwiu.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30379, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Qwiu has a direct effect on jyka and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that qwiu or yupt causes jyka. qwiu or jyka causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt and an individual is not qwiu.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30384, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that jyka and qwiu causes yupt. jyka or qwiu or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not qwiu.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30387, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that jyka and qwiu causes yupt. jyka or qwiu or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is qwiu.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30392, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that jyka or qwiu causes yupt. jyka and qwiu and yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not qwiu.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30393, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on yupt and kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu is unobserved.\nWe know that jyka or qwiu causes yupt. jyka and qwiu and yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not qwiu.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30401, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt and not qwiu. yupt or qwiu causes kwox.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30403, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt and not qwiu. yupt or qwiu causes kwox.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30404, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt and qwiu. yupt and qwiu causes kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30410, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt and qwiu. yupt or qwiu causes kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30413, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt and not qwiu. yupt and qwiu causes kwox.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30414, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on qwiu and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka causes yupt and not qwiu. yupt and qwiu causes kwox.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30416, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes not jyka and qwiu. jyka or qwiu causes kwox. We observed an individual is not yupt.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30418, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes not jyka and qwiu. jyka or qwiu causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30419, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes not jyka and qwiu. jyka or qwiu causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30420, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes not jyka and qwiu. jyka or qwiu causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30422, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes jyka and qwiu. jyka and qwiu causes kwox. We observed an individual is not yupt.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30423, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes jyka and qwiu. jyka and qwiu causes kwox. We observed an individual is not yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30425, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes not jyka and qwiu. jyka and qwiu causes kwox. We observed an individual is not yupt.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30426, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes not jyka and qwiu. jyka and qwiu causes kwox. We observed an individual is not yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30428, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes not jyka and qwiu. jyka and qwiu causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30431, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on qwiu and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Qwiu has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that yupt causes jyka and qwiu. jyka or qwiu causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30432, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not yupt.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30433, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30434, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not yupt.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30435, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is not yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30436, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30437, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30438, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka or yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30444, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka and yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30445, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka and yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if not jyka instead of jyka?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30447, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on kwox. Yupt has a direct effect on kwox.\nWe know that jyka and yupt causes kwox. We observed an individual is yupt.\nWould an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30448, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj, and we know that zupj causes not muvq.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30449, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj, and we know that zupj causes not muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30450, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj, and we know that zupj causes not muvq.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30451, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj, and we know that zupj causes not muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30453, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes not zupj, and we know that zupj causes not muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30454, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes not zupj, and we know that zupj causes not muvq.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30455, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes not zupj, and we know that zupj causes not muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30456, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes not zupj, and we know that zupj causes muvq.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30459, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes not zupj, and we know that zupj causes muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30463, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj, and we know that zupj causes muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30468, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes not yupt. zupj and yupt causes muvq. We observed an individual is not zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30469, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes not yupt. zupj and yupt causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30470, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes not yupt. zupj and yupt causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30471, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes yupt. zupj and yupt causes muvq. We observed an individual is not zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30473, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes yupt. zupj and yupt causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30474, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes yupt. zupj and yupt causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30476, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes yupt. zupj or yupt causes muvq. We observed an individual is not zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30479, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes yupt. zupj or yupt causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30480, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj. yupt or zupj causes muvq.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30483, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj. yupt or zupj causes muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30485, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes not zupj. yupt and zupj causes muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30487, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes not zupj. yupt and zupj causes muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30490, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes not zupj. yupt or zupj causes muvq.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30491, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes not zupj. yupt or zupj causes muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30492, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj. yupt and zupj causes muvq.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30493, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj. yupt and zupj causes muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30494, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj. yupt and zupj causes muvq.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30495, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj. yupt and zupj causes muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30496, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that xyfo causes yupt. yupt causes zupj. xyfo and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not xyfo.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30497, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that xyfo causes yupt. yupt causes zupj. xyfo and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not xyfo.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30498, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that xyfo causes yupt. yupt causes zupj. xyfo and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is xyfo.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30499, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that xyfo causes yupt. yupt causes zupj. xyfo and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is xyfo.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30501, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that xyfo causes yupt. yupt causes zupj. xyfo and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is xyfo.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30503, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that xyfo causes yupt. yupt causes not zupj. xyfo and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not xyfo.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30504, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that xyfo causes yupt. yupt causes not zupj. xyfo and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not xyfo.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30505, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that xyfo causes yupt. yupt causes not zupj. xyfo and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is xyfo.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30506, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that xyfo causes yupt. yupt causes not zupj. xyfo or zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not xyfo.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30508, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that xyfo causes yupt. yupt causes not zupj. xyfo or zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is xyfo.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30510, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Xyfo has a direct effect on yupt and muvq. Yupt has a direct effect on zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that xyfo causes yupt. yupt causes zupj. xyfo or zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not xyfo.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30528, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that yupt and xyfo causes zupj. yupt and xyfo and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not xyfo.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30531, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that yupt or xyfo causes zupj. yupt and xyfo and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not xyfo.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30535, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that yupt or xyfo causes zupj. yupt and xyfo and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is xyfo.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30536, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that yupt or xyfo causes zupj. yupt and xyfo and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is xyfo.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30538, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that yupt and xyfo causes zupj. yupt or xyfo or zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not xyfo.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30541, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that yupt or xyfo causes zupj. yupt or xyfo or zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not xyfo.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30542, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on zupj and muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo is unobserved.\nWe know that yupt or xyfo causes zupj. yupt or xyfo or zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not xyfo.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30551, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj and not xyfo. zupj or xyfo causes muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30552, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj and not xyfo. zupj and xyfo causes muvq.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30553, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj and not xyfo. zupj and xyfo causes muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30555, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj and not xyfo. zupj and xyfo causes muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30556, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj and xyfo. zupj or xyfo causes muvq.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30557, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on xyfo and zupj. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt causes zupj and xyfo. zupj or xyfo causes muvq.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30560, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes yupt and xyfo. yupt and xyfo causes muvq. We observed an individual is not zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30561, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes yupt and xyfo. yupt and xyfo causes muvq. We observed an individual is not zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30562, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes yupt and xyfo. yupt and xyfo causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30563, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes yupt and xyfo. yupt and xyfo causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30564, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes yupt and xyfo. yupt and xyfo causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30565, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes yupt and xyfo. yupt or xyfo causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30566, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes yupt and xyfo. yupt or xyfo causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30568, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes yupt and xyfo. yupt or xyfo causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30569, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes not yupt and xyfo. yupt or xyfo causes muvq. We observed an individual is not zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30570, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes not yupt and xyfo. yupt or xyfo causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30571, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes not yupt and xyfo. yupt or xyfo causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30573, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes not yupt and xyfo. yupt and xyfo causes muvq. We observed an individual is not zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30574, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zupj has a direct effect on xyfo and yupt. Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Xyfo has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that zupj causes not yupt and xyfo. yupt and xyfo causes muvq. We observed an individual is not zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30577, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt or zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30578, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt or zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30581, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt or zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30582, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt or zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30584, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30585, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30587, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is not zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30588, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30589, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if not yupt instead of yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30590, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30591, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Yupt has a direct effect on muvq. Zupj has a direct effect on muvq.\nWe know that yupt and zupj causes muvq. We observed an individual is zupj.\nWould an individual is not muvq if yupt instead of not yupt?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30592, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl, and we know that wibl causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30594, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl, and we know that wibl causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30595, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl, and we know that wibl causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30596, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes not wibl, and we know that wibl causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30597, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes not wibl, and we know that wibl causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30598, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes not wibl, and we know that wibl causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30599, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes not wibl, and we know that wibl causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30603, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl, and we know that wibl causes not uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30604, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes not wibl, and we know that wibl causes not uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30605, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes not wibl, and we know that wibl causes not uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30606, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes not wibl, and we know that wibl causes not uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30607, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes not wibl, and we know that wibl causes not uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30610, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes not zuph. wibl or zuph causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30611, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes not zuph. wibl or zuph causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30612, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes not zuph. wibl or zuph causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30613, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes not zuph. wibl or zuph causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30616, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes zuph. wibl or zuph causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30618, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes not zuph. wibl and zuph causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30620, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes zuph. wibl and zuph causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30625, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes not wibl. zuph or wibl causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30627, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes not wibl. zuph or wibl causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30628, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes not wibl. zuph and wibl causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30634, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl. zuph or wibl causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30638, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl. zuph and wibl causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30639, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl. zuph and wibl causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30640, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nWe know that vubr causes zuph. zuph causes wibl. vubr and wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not vubr.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30645, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nWe know that vubr causes zuph. zuph causes wibl. vubr or wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not vubr.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30647, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nWe know that vubr causes zuph. zuph causes not wibl. vubr or wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not vubr.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30648, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nWe know that vubr causes zuph. zuph causes not wibl. vubr or wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not vubr.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30650, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nWe know that vubr causes zuph. zuph causes not wibl. vubr or wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is vubr.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30652, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nWe know that vubr causes zuph. zuph causes not wibl. vubr and wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is vubr.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30653, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nWe know that vubr causes zuph. zuph causes not wibl. vubr and wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is vubr.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30654, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Zuph has a direct effect on wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nWe know that vubr causes zuph. zuph causes not wibl. vubr and wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is vubr.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30657, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nWe know that vubr or wibl causes zuph. vubr or zuph causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl and an individual is not vubr.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30658, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nWe know that vubr or wibl causes zuph. vubr or zuph causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl and an individual is not vubr.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30671, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Vubr has a direct effect on zuph and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nWe know that vubr or wibl causes zuph. vubr and zuph causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl and an individual is vubr.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30674, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nWe know that zuph or vubr causes wibl. zuph or vubr or wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not vubr.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30684, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on wibl and uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr is unobserved.\nWe know that zuph and vubr causes wibl. zuph or vubr or wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not vubr.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30688, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl and not vubr. wibl and vubr causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30689, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl and not vubr. wibl and vubr causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30694, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl and vubr. wibl and vubr causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30695, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl and vubr. wibl and vubr causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30696, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl and not vubr. wibl or vubr causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30697, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl and not vubr. wibl or vubr causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30698, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl and not vubr. wibl or vubr causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30699, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl and not vubr. wibl or vubr causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30700, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl and vubr. wibl or vubr causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30701, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl and vubr. wibl or vubr causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30702, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl and vubr. wibl or vubr causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30703, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on vubr and wibl. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph causes wibl and vubr. wibl or vubr causes uvzi.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30704, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes not zuph and vubr. zuph or vubr causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30705, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes not zuph and vubr. zuph or vubr causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30706, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes not zuph and vubr. zuph and vubr causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30709, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes zuph and vubr. zuph or vubr causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30710, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes zuph and vubr. zuph or vubr causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30712, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes zuph and vubr. zuph or vubr causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30713, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes zuph and vubr. zuph or vubr causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30714, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes zuph and vubr. zuph and vubr causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30716, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes zuph and vubr. zuph and vubr causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30717, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Wibl has a direct effect on vubr and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Vubr has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that wibl causes zuph and vubr. zuph and vubr causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30720, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph and wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30721, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph and wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30724, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph and wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30725, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph and wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30729, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph or wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30731, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph or wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is not wibl.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30734, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph or wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl.\nWould an individual is uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30735, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on uvzi. Wibl has a direct effect on uvzi.\nWe know that zuph or wibl causes uvzi. We observed an individual is wibl.\nWould an individual is not uvzi if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30736, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax, and we know that hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30737, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax, and we know that hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30742, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax, and we know that hwax causes not rukz.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30743, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax, and we know that hwax causes not rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30744, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes not hwax, and we know that hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30745, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes not hwax, and we know that hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30746, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes not hwax, and we know that hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30747, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes not hwax, and we know that hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30749, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes not hwax, and we know that hwax causes not rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30751, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes not hwax, and we know that hwax causes not rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30753, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes not pexu. hwax and pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30755, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes pexu. hwax or pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30756, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes pexu. hwax or pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30759, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes not pexu. hwax or pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30762, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes not pexu. hwax or pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30764, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes pexu. hwax and pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30766, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes pexu. hwax and pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30767, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes pexu. hwax and pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30768, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax. pexu or hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30769, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax. pexu or hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30771, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax. pexu or hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30773, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes not hwax. pexu or hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30774, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes not hwax. pexu or hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30778, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax. pexu and hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30779, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax. pexu and hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30782, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes not hwax. pexu and hwax causes rukz.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30784, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz causes pexu. pexu causes not hwax. kraz and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is not kraz.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30785, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz causes pexu. pexu causes not hwax. kraz and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is not kraz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30788, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz causes pexu. pexu causes not hwax. kraz and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30790, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz causes pexu. pexu causes hwax. kraz and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is not kraz.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30791, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz causes pexu. pexu causes hwax. kraz and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is not kraz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30792, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz causes pexu. pexu causes hwax. kraz and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30793, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz causes pexu. pexu causes hwax. kraz and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30795, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz causes pexu. pexu causes not hwax. kraz or hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is not kraz.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30797, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz causes pexu. pexu causes hwax. kraz or hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is not kraz.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30798, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Pexu has a direct effect on hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz causes pexu. pexu causes hwax. kraz or hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30801, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz and hwax causes pexu. kraz or pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax and an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30802, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz and hwax causes pexu. kraz or pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax and an individual is not kraz.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30806, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz or hwax causes pexu. kraz and pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax and an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30807, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz or hwax causes pexu. kraz and pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax and an individual is not kraz.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30810, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz or hwax causes pexu. kraz or pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax and an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30812, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Kraz has a direct effect on pexu and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that kraz or hwax causes pexu. kraz or pexu causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax and an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30818, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that pexu or kraz causes hwax. pexu or kraz or hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30821, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that pexu or kraz causes hwax. pexu and kraz and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is not kraz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30822, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that pexu or kraz causes hwax. pexu and kraz and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30824, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that pexu and kraz causes hwax. pexu and kraz and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30825, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that pexu and kraz causes hwax. pexu and kraz and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30828, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that pexu and kraz causes hwax. pexu or kraz or hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is not kraz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30829, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that pexu and kraz causes hwax. pexu or kraz or hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30830, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on hwax and rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz is unobserved.\nWe know that pexu and kraz causes hwax. pexu or kraz or hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is kraz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30835, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax and not kraz. hwax and kraz causes rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30840, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax and kraz. hwax or kraz causes rukz.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30841, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax and kraz. hwax or kraz causes rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30842, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax and kraz. hwax or kraz causes rukz.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30843, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax and kraz. hwax or kraz causes rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30845, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax and not kraz. hwax or kraz causes rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30846, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax and not kraz. hwax or kraz causes rukz.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30847, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on kraz and hwax. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu causes hwax and not kraz. hwax or kraz causes rukz.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30849, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes not pexu and kraz. pexu and kraz causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30850, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes not pexu and kraz. pexu and kraz causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30851, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes not pexu and kraz. pexu and kraz causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30852, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes not pexu and kraz. pexu or kraz causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30854, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes not pexu and kraz. pexu or kraz causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30856, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes pexu and kraz. pexu or kraz causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30857, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes pexu and kraz. pexu or kraz causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30858, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes pexu and kraz. pexu or kraz causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30859, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes pexu and kraz. pexu and kraz causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30860, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Hwax has a direct effect on kraz and pexu. Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Kraz has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that hwax causes pexu and kraz. pexu and kraz causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30868, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu or hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30869, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu or hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30871, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu or hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30872, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30873, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is not rukz if not pexu instead of pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30874, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is not hwax.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30878, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30879, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Pexu has a direct effect on rukz. Hwax has a direct effect on rukz.\nWe know that pexu and hwax causes rukz. We observed an individual is hwax.\nWould an individual is not rukz if pexu instead of not pexu?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30880, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes not jyka, and we know that jyka causes glimx.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30881, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes not jyka, and we know that jyka causes glimx.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30883, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes not jyka, and we know that jyka causes glimx.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30887, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka, and we know that jyka causes glimx.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30888, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka, and we know that jyka causes not glimx.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30889, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka, and we know that jyka causes not glimx.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30890, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka, and we know that jyka causes not glimx.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30892, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes not jyka, and we know that jyka causes not glimx.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30893, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes not jyka, and we know that jyka causes not glimx.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30894, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes not jyka, and we know that jyka causes not glimx.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30895, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes not jyka, and we know that jyka causes not glimx.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30896, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes not zuph. jyka or zuph causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30900, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes zuph. jyka and zuph causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30909, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes zuph. jyka or zuph causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30911, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes zuph. jyka or zuph causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30914, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka. zuph or jyka causes glimx.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30918, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka. zuph and jyka causes glimx.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30919, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka. zuph and jyka causes glimx.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30925, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes not jyka. zuph and jyka causes glimx.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30928, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory causes zuph. zuph causes not jyka. zory or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is not zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30929, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory causes zuph. zuph causes not jyka. zory or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is not zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30930, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory causes zuph. zuph causes not jyka. zory or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30931, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory causes zuph. zuph causes not jyka. zory or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is zory.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30932, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory causes zuph. zuph causes not jyka. zory or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30933, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory causes zuph. zuph causes not jyka. zory and jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is not zory.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30934, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory causes zuph. zuph causes not jyka. zory and jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is not zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30936, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory causes zuph. zuph causes not jyka. zory and jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is zory.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30938, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory causes zuph. zuph causes jyka. zory or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is not zory.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30942, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory causes zuph. zuph causes jyka. zory and jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is not zory.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30943, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Zuph has a direct effect on jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory causes zuph. zuph causes jyka. zory and jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30945, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory and jyka causes zuph. zory and zuph causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka and an individual is not zory.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30951, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory and jyka causes zuph. zory or zuph causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka and an individual is not zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30954, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory and jyka causes zuph. zory or zuph causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka and an individual is not zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30956, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory or jyka causes zuph. zory or zuph causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka and an individual is zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30958, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory or jyka causes zuph. zory or zuph causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka and an individual is zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30959, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zory has a direct effect on zuph and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zory or jyka causes zuph. zory or zuph causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka and an individual is zory.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30960, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zuph and zory causes jyka. zuph or zory or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is not zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30963, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zuph and zory causes jyka. zuph and zory and jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30966, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zuph and zory causes jyka. zuph and zory and jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is zory.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30971, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zuph or zory causes jyka. zuph or zory or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is not zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30972, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Zory has a direct effect on jyka and glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory is unobserved.\nWe know that zuph or zory causes jyka. zuph or zory or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is zory.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30977, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka and zory. jyka and zory causes glimx.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30978, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka and zory. jyka and zory causes glimx.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30979, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka and zory. jyka and zory causes glimx.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30981, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka and not zory. jyka and zory causes glimx.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30985, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka and not zory. jyka or zory causes glimx.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30986, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka and not zory. jyka or zory causes glimx.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30988, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on zory and jyka. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph causes jyka and zory. jyka or zory causes glimx.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30992, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes not zuph and zory. zuph and zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30993, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes not zuph and zory. zuph and zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30994, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes not zuph and zory. zuph and zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30995, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes zuph and zory. zuph or zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30996, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes zuph and zory. zuph or zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 30997, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes zuph and zory. zuph or zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30998, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes not zuph and zory. zuph or zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 30999, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes not zuph and zory. zuph or zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 31000, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes not zuph and zory. zuph or zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 31001, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes not zuph and zory. zuph or zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 31003, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes zuph and zory. zuph and zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 31004, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes zuph and zory. zuph and zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 31005, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes zuph and zory. zuph and zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 31006, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes zuph and zory. zuph and zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 31007, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Jyka has a direct effect on zory and zuph. Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Zory has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that jyka causes zuph and zory. zuph and zory causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 31009, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka.\nWould an individual is not glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 31010, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 31011, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 31012, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 31014, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}, {"id": 31015, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph or jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is jyka.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 31016, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph and jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka.\nWould an individual is glimx if not zuph instead of zuph?", "ground_truth": "no"}, {"id": 31019, "prompt": "Imagine a self-contained, hypothetical world with only the following conditions, and without any unmentioned factors or causal relationships: Zuph has a direct effect on glimx. Jyka has a direct effect on glimx.\nWe know that zuph and jyka causes glimx. We observed an individual is not jyka.\nWould an individual is not glimx if zuph instead of not zuph?", "ground_truth": "yes"}]